Court Opinion

ID: 9787943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:27:58.680465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:02.710920
License: Public Domain

Herlihy, J. (concurring).
The photographs received by the jury graphically pictured the position of the automobiles in the street at the time of the collision, as testified to by the plaintiff and defendant, and was sufficient justification for the charge by the court of the doctrine of last clear chance, together with common-law negligence. The latter doctrine was further emphasized as the case was ready to go to the jury when the attorney for the defendants requested the court to charge in the following language: “ I request Your Honor to charge the jury that if the jury find that Evelyn Kaskoff was negligent in any degree and that such negligence was the proximate cause of t,he accident the verdict shall be a verdict of no cause of action for the defendants.” By the court: “ I have already so charged.”
In my opinion, the doctrine of last clear chance should seldom be charged in automobile negligence cases but a review of the present record does not necessitate the granting of a new trial.
Gibson and Herlihy, JJ., concur with Bergan, P. J.; Herlihy, J., concurs in a separate opinion in which Bergan, P. J., and Gibson, J., concur; Reynolds, J., dissents and votes to reverse and order a new trial, in an opinion, in which Taylor, J., concurs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.