
    Gustaf Anderson, Respondent, v. Gustave H. Schorn et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Schorn & Brower, Appellants.
    
      Negligence — motor vehicles — negligent operation of automobile in street — question for jury.
    
    
      Anderson v. Schorn, 189 App. Div. 495, affirmed.
    (Argued May 12, 1921;
    decided May 31, 1921.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 21, 1919, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granting a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendants. Plaintiff, while crossing Havemeyer street in the borough of Brooklyn, was struck by defendants’ automobile and received the injuries complained of. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no evidence of defendants’ negligence. The Appellate Division held that the “ method of operation in violation of the city ordinance, coupled with the skidding of the rear wheels of the truck on a wet pavement and the fact that the driver testifies that while he was making the turn and when he first saw the plaintiff he knew that his truck was skidding, presented a question of fact for the jury as to whether the driver used reasonable care.”
    
      Murray G. Jenkins, William B. Shelton and William Dike Reed for appellants.
    
      Thomas A. Shaw, Jay S. Jones, Edward J. Fanning, L. Victor Fleckles and Henry M. Dater for respondent.
   Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellants on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  