Barton v. Bee Line, Inc. case brief summary
265 N.Y.S. 284 (1933)
CASE FACTS
The passenger claimed that she was raped while in the chauffeur's vehicle.
The chauffeur testified that the passenger consented to sexual relations.
Jury was instructed that if the passenger was assaulted while in the vehicle, she was entitled to a recovery because the chauffeur would have been liable for damages for failure to perform his duty as a common carrier.
The verdict was returned and was in the favor of the passenger.
The trial court set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.
DISCUSSION
When reviewing the decision, the court stated that it was an error for the lower (trial) court to instruct the jury that the passenger was entitled to a verdict even if she had consented to intimate relations with the chauffeur.
HOLDING
A person who perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse with a female (not his wife) and with an individual under 18 years of age, under circumstances that do not amount to repe in the first degree is guilty of rape in the second degree.
A female under the age of 18, however, has no cause of action against a male with who she willingly consorts if she knows the nature and quality of her act.
CONCLUSION
The court affirms the trial court's order.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
265 N.Y.S. 284 (1933)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The passenger (Plaintiff) seeks review of a NY Supreme Court order which set aside a verdict in her favor.
The court ordered a new trial in an action against the defendant, who was a chauffeur. The action alleged that the defendant was raped while in the passenger's vehicle.
The passenger (Plaintiff) seeks review of a NY Supreme Court order which set aside a verdict in her favor.
The court ordered a new trial in an action against the defendant, who was a chauffeur. The action alleged that the defendant was raped while in the passenger's vehicle.
CASE FACTS
The passenger claimed that she was raped while in the chauffeur's vehicle.
The chauffeur testified that the passenger consented to sexual relations.
Jury was instructed that if the passenger was assaulted while in the vehicle, she was entitled to a recovery because the chauffeur would have been liable for damages for failure to perform his duty as a common carrier.
The verdict was returned and was in the favor of the passenger.
The trial court set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.
DISCUSSION
When reviewing the decision, the court stated that it was an error for the lower (trial) court to instruct the jury that the passenger was entitled to a verdict even if she had consented to intimate relations with the chauffeur.
HOLDING
A person who perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse with a female (not his wife) and with an individual under 18 years of age, under circumstances that do not amount to repe in the first degree is guilty of rape in the second degree.
A female under the age of 18, however, has no cause of action against a male with who she willingly consorts if she knows the nature and quality of her act.
CONCLUSION
The court affirms the trial court's order.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment