Comstock v. Wilson
New York Court of Appeals
257 N.Y. 231, 177 N.E. 431 (1931)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
The plaintiff’s automobile collided with another automobile operated by the defendant. The plaintiff’s testatrix was a passenger in the plaintiff’s automobile when the collision occurred. The collision caused some noise and loosened the left fender of the plaintiff’s car. The testatrix stepped from the car after the accident and started to write down the defendant’s name and license number. While she was doing that, the testatrix fainted and fell to the sidewalk and fractured her skull. This all occurred within a few minutes after the collision. The testatrix lived about 20 minutes after she fell. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s negligence caused the testatrix’s death. A jury awarded the plaintiff $5,000 after the jury decided, as a question of fact, that the defendant’s alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the testatrix’s death. The trial judge had refused the defendant’s request to instruct the jury that if the testatrix had sustained only shock or fright at the time of the collision, without physical injury, the jury must find for the defendant. The defendant appealed, contending that fright alone cannot form the basis of an action. The appellate court certified the question of whether it was error for the trial court to refuse to give the defendant’s requested instruction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lehman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
