Alessi v. Kew Gardens Luncheonette, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alessi v. Kew Gardens Luncheonette, Inc.

5 A.D.2d 673, 168 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 2, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 673 (Alessi v. Kew Gardens Luncheonette, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alessi v. Kew Gardens Luncheonette, Inc., 5 A.D.2d 673, 168 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent. Respondent, a patron on appellant’s premises, received burns when he came into contact with the contents of a flaming pot of oil while he was voluntarily acting in the interest of appellant in the removal of said pot. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. There was no proof that any person other than respondent was in jeopardy. In our opinion, error was committed (1) in the court’s instructions to the jury with respect to negligence in causing the fire and respondent’s status as a rescuer, and (2) in submitting such issues to the jury for determination. All that was required to he determined was whether respondent was entitled to recover damages caused by negligence on the part of the appellant’s representative in handling the pot of oil under the circumstances disclosed.

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent. Respondent, a patron on appellant’s premises, received burns when he came into contact with the contents of a flaming pot of oil while he was voluntarily acting in the interest of appellant in the removal of said pot. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. There was no proof that any person other than respondent was in jeopardy. In our opinion, error was committed (1) in the court’s instructions to the jury with respect to negligence in causing the fire and respondent’s status as a rescuer, and (2) in submitting such issues to the jury for determination. All that was required to he determined was whether respondent was entitled to recover damages caused by negligence on the part of the appellant’s representative in handling the pot of oil under the circumstances disclosed.

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 673, 168 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alessi-v-kew-gardens-luncheonette-inc-nyappdiv-1957.