Law School Case Briefs: Ct. of App. of N.Y.

Showing posts with label Ct. of App. of N.Y.. Show all posts

MARTIN V. HERZOG, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164,126 N.E. 814 (1920). CASE BRIEF

MARTIN V. HERZOG

Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Martin (P) appealed the order of the Appellate Division that reversed a judgment entered after jury trial that found Herzog (D) negligent and P blameless.

FACTS: Martin (P) was driving his buggy on the night of August 21, 1915. P was killed in a collision between his buggy and Herzog's (D) car. It was dark when the accident occurred. P was driving without lights and D did not keep to the right of the center of the highway. P alleged that D was driving on the wrong side of the road. D claimed that P was contributorily negligent for failing to drive without headlights as required under the law. In the body of the charge the trial judge said that the jury could consider the absence of light 'in determining whether the plaintiff's intestate was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to have a light upon the buggy as provided by law. I do not mean to say that the absence of light necessarily makes him negligent, but it is a fact for your consideration.' D requested a ruling that the absence of a light on the plaintiff's vehicle was 'prima facie evidence of contributory negligence.' This request was refused, and the jury were again instructed that they might consider the absence of lights as some evidence of negligence, but that it was not conclusive evidence. P then requested a charge that 'the fact that the plaintiff's intestate was driving without a light is not negligence in itself,' and to this the court acceded. The jury was instructed that they were at liberty to treat the omission of the lights either as innocent or as culpable. The jury gave the verdict to P. The Appellate Division reversed that verdict. P appealed to the court of appeals.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND R.R. CO., Ct. of App. of N.Y., 248 N.Y. 339,162 N.E. 99 (1928) CASE BRIEF

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND R.R. CO.

Ct. of App. of N.Y., 248 N.Y. 339,162 N.E. 99 (1928)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Railroad (D) appealed a judgment which affirmed the trial court's holding that D was responsible for injuries to Palsgraf (P) resulting from an explosion.

FACTS: Mrs. Palsgraf (P) was standing on a platform after she bought a ticket from R.R. (D) when two men ran to catch a train which was pulling out from the platform. The first man jumped aboard safe and sound. The second man who was carrying a package was helped by a guard on the station and one on the train who had kept the door open so these two men could jump aboard. In the process of boarding in this manner the package the man was carrying fell and exploded. It was a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and was covered by a newspaper. In fact, it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its appearance to give notice of its contents. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck P, causing injury. P sued D and was awarded damages. D appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed. D appealed.

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND R.R. CO., Ct. of App. of N.Y., 248 N.Y. 339,162 N.E. 99 (1928) CASE BRIEF

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND R.R. CO.

Ct. of App. of N.Y., 248 N.Y. 339,162 N.E. 99 (1928)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Railroad (D) appealed a judgment which affirmed the trial court's holding that D was responsible for injuries to Palsgraf (P) resulting from an explosion.

MARTIN V. HERZOG, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164,126 N.E. 814 (1920). CASE BRIEF

MARTIN V. HERZOG

Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Martin (P) appealed the order of the Appellate Division that reversed a judgment entered after jury trial that found Herzog (D) negligent and P blameless.

MACPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO., Ct. of App. of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) CASE BRIEF

MacPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO.

Ct. of App. of N.Y., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Buick (D) appealed from a judgment which affirmed a judgment holding D liable for negligently failing to inspect a car that was bought by MacPherson (P).

FACTS: D is a manufacturer of automobiles. It made new cars from parts it purchased from various suppliers. D neglected to perform safety tests on the car and neglected to inspect the parts of the cars before assembly. It sold an automobile to a retail dealer. The retail dealer resold to P. While P was in the car, it suddenly collapsed and P was injured. One of the wheels was made of defective wood, and its spokes crumbled into fragments. D bought the wheel from another manufacturer. It was established that the defects could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection, and that inspection was omitted. There was no privity between P and D. Judgment was awarded to P and D appealed.

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND R.R. CO., Ct. of App. of N.Y., 248 N.Y. 339,162 N.E. 99 (1928). CASE BRIEF

PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND R.R. CO.

Ct. of App. of N.Y., 248 N.Y. 339,162 N.E. 99 (1928)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Railroad (D) appealed a judgment which affirmed the trial court's holding that D was responsible for injuries to Palsgraf (P) resulting from an explosion.

MARTIN V. HERZOG, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164,126 N.E. 814 (1920) CASE BRIEF

MARTIN V. HERZOG

Ct. of App. of N.Y., 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Martin (P) appealed the order of the Appellate Division that reversed a judgment entered after jury trial that found Herzog (D) negligent and P blameless.

H. R. MOCH CO. V. RENSSELAER WATER CO., Ct. of App. of N.Y., 247 N.Y. 160,159 N.E. 896 (1928) CASE BRIEF

H.R. MOCH CO. V. RENSSELAER WATER CO.

247 N.Y. 160, 159 N.E. 896 (1928)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Moch (P) appealed a decision in favor of Water (D) under P's claim asserting that D was negligent for failing to provide enough water during a city fire.

FACTS: D supplied the City of Rensselaer with water. This water was used for various things, including fire hydrants. P owned a building in Rensselaer. This building burned down. The nearest fire hydrants were not able to produce sufficient water at an appropriate pressure to save the building. D was under contract with the city to adequately provide this water. P sued for damages caused by reason of the failure of D to 'fulfill the provisions of the contract between it and the city of Rensselaer.' D made a motion, in the nature of a demurrer, to dismiss the complaint. D's motion was denied at Special term. The Appellate Division reversed by a divided court.