Barton v. Bee Line, Inc. case brief summary
265 N.Y.S. 284 (1933)
CASE FACTS
The passenger filed an action against a chauffeur claiming that she was raped while a passenger. The chauffeur testified that the passenger had consented to the sexual relations. The jury was instructed that if the passenger was assaulted while a passenger, she was entitled to recover because the chauffeur would have been liable in damages for failure to perform its duty as a common carrier. A verdict was returned in the passenger's favor and subsequently set aside by the trial court and a new trial ordered.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court setting aside a verdict for the passenger who alleged she was raped while in the car of the chauffeur and ordering a new trial.
Suggested law school study materials
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s01Ep3JyC_V0NuQRLPWVz76pRH17KLz5TnLGJ6HPecplMjiuu4LhCbSbdiCC9ky8QdlFqq4OME5lCVcQImlyAm36VgWW_BNJVtLtDvSgy7G7x3oFyD6YMWjQG7cUCfjURyFob1fLqvIWXEt0eB0rtqjmKoLBfdR2fe-YL45823LJ3x290Fm0uC0DLORx397_he0SsXRnXwNgx8AwXYh777CkSoOPDSg_d6jwBgtr6XM7i0eX9o0Lzx70MyEyRE3dteEk8kef_XWVua=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u4kSw8SIF_EWKAA-HXmY4gatdJ3PEth8TyFMs85G245NxBNfKXCREc6djogUvqarYTJVYQ_HmaupN9Hbw5myZEOcNfpAc0DS9KKLO_vnzqHwVF_LgHKHMQv05Y-3Lo8v2YaTt0QY-tsXMKxYI9bILx-44yJtzQLoT5_ULTdk3hgXZNByaeO2Ds6BSTn0XQrG-kelnrAM2p3SGfyCuLNn1cf-f7_-bpngZUcgWMikH7JmyMm66zSaCmrrnLIDj6O9T_5H0ijhEKd24=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vOaokcJJ0f62FqcCQIVVS6_I0vT4ekcC186KLp21u4Z6sp7mKjbYdTzGj5wiEConPJJQnQcvTgAtWU_gXchP3XPooAAHCbRaTvbar6Vm25HOATDV-BiCaq6uSg1zuwP60TPhHR46vFvsVi33A_V4f8lugkwByj1AMHGw5CjLIlTRLsvNUrU5F4IDb9FN4blTSc5qiOShPvDRWDcEks2IlPCjmzMDR4uKQaLnr2e2dvvbdpdgyK76-cNsv2lfLEQdK_RXF6M-o-su73=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tE5T7bD09Gwc4RGzaz0qjBmylDp8KYSsEzoZgila5QwDkB_HHD1Hi9iRV1Csrm9kAazoyH1UuxIxpg1GzqGDIw8ArOCEYbhJelLXUk3qCA-MbRfjCV3wQFq5YVKTBuodPinyaMDPCJE5pGqjspFP-DhJ1H2T9NcMfl0kuPuCYcw504ZLav4rbYPTbXAmB8j43Jim_Fx1OBXg__SY1YaJXH1sCejzSH_nwJ2NQDUTPit816HenetCYWbZHQKWFcZkBM2ydmSY0wYTnP=s0-d)
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
265 N.Y.S. 284 (1933)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff passenger sought review of an
order of the Supreme Court in Nassau County (New York) that set aside
a verdict in her favor and ordered a new trial in an action against
defendant chauffeur alleging that she was raped while in his vehicle.CASE FACTS
The passenger filed an action against a chauffeur claiming that she was raped while a passenger. The chauffeur testified that the passenger had consented to the sexual relations. The jury was instructed that if the passenger was assaulted while a passenger, she was entitled to recover because the chauffeur would have been liable in damages for failure to perform its duty as a common carrier. A verdict was returned in the passenger's favor and subsequently set aside by the trial court and a new trial ordered.
DISCUSSION
- Upon review of the decision, the court held that it was error for the trial court to have instructed the jury that the passenger was entitled to a verdict even if she consented to consort with the chauffeur.
- The court held that a person who perpetrated an act of sexual intercourse with a female, not his wife, under the age of 18 years, under circumstances not amounting to rape in the first degree, would be guilty of rape in the second degree.
- However, a female under 18 years had no cause of action against a male with whom she willingly consorted if she knew the nature and quality of her act.
- The court held that the order should be affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court setting aside a verdict for the passenger who alleged she was raped while in the car of the chauffeur and ordering a new trial.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
No comments:
Post a Comment