Barr v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barr v. City of New York

20 A.D.2d 883, 248 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3967

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

DecidedApril 23, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 883 (Barr v. City of New York) 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

Barr v. City of New York, 20 A.D.2d 883, 248 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. On this record plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Plaintiff was selected and served as a juror from Monday to Thursday, the date of the accident. Though aware of the • existence and location of the footrail in the jury box, plaintiff failed to look where he was going when leaving the jury box, with the result that his foot caught in an upright which supported the footrail. Relative unfamiliarity with his surroundings emphasized the duty for plaintiff to use at least reasonable care for his own safety. This he failed to do. Neither faulty design nor negligent maintenance can be held responsible for the accident. 'Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. On this record plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Plaintiff was selected and served as a juror from Monday to Thursday, the date of the accident. Though aware of the • existence and location of the footrail in the jury box, plaintiff failed to look where he was going when leaving the jury box, with the result that his foot caught in an upright which supported the footrail. Relative unfamiliarity with his surroundings emphasized the duty for plaintiff to use at least reasonable care for his own safety. This he failed to do. Neither faulty design nor negligent maintenance can be held responsible for the accident. 'Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 883, 248 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barr-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1964.