Cortlandt Howell v. Mae E. Dearling
Summary of the case Cortlandt Howell v. Mae E. Dearling
In a personal injury case where the respondent was struck by a car while riding a bicycle, the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff was reversed. The court found error in admitting evidence about the appellant changing her windshield after the accident, which affected the appellant's substantial rights. A new trial was granted.
Key Issues of the case Cortlandt Howell v. Mae E. Dearling
- Admissibility of evidence regarding post-accident changes
- Impact of erroneous evidence on substantial rights
Key Facts of the case Cortlandt Howell v. Mae E. Dearling
- Respondent was struck by a car while riding a bicycle
- Appellant changed the windshield of her car after the accident
Decision of the case Cortlandt Howell v. Mae E. Dearling
Judgment in favor of plaintiff reversed and a new trial granted.
Opinions
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when respondent, who was riding a bicycle, was struck by a car driven by appellant, at a street intersection, judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Error was committed by the learned trial court in admitting evidence as to the fact that appellant had changed the windshield of her automobile subsequent to the accident. (Cahill v. Kleinberg, 233 N. Y. 255.) In a case as close as this, we are unable to state that the erroneous admission of this evidence did not affect appellant’s substantial rights. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.