Blando v. Reiss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blando v. Reiss

10 A.D.2d 811, 197 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 811 (Blando v. Reiss) 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

Blando v. Reiss, 10 A.D.2d 811, 197 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: This action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff when a bulldozer operated by an employee of respondent caused a piece of cement to strike plaintiff. The issue that developed upon the trial was whether the direction to the operator of the bulldozer at the time of the accident, which is alleged to have been negligently given, was given by the foreman employed by the plaintiff’s employer or by the foreman employed by the defendant-respondent. This issue was not presented to the jury. Instead the ease was submitted to the jury to determine whether the operator of the bulldozer was acting as the employee of the defendant-respondent or of some third party. There was no evidence to justify the submission of this issue. In the interests of justice a new trial should be had. Furthermore, upon the present proof, the bulldozer operator was negligent in failing to see the plaintiff in any event and the verdict exonerating the defendant-respondent was against the weight of the evidence. (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Trial Term, for defendant Reiss for no cause of action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of negligent operation of excavating equipment. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: This action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff when a bulldozer operated by an employee of respondent caused a piece of cement to strike plaintiff. The issue that developed upon the trial was whether the direction to the operator of the bulldozer at the time of the accident, which is alleged to have been negligently given, was given by the foreman employed by the plaintiff’s employer or by the foreman employed by the defendant-respondent. This issue was not presented to the jury. Instead the ease was submitted to the jury to determine whether the operator of the bulldozer was acting as the employee of the defendant-respondent or of some third party. There was no evidence to justify the submission of this issue. In the interests of justice a new trial should be had. Furthermore, upon the present proof, the bulldozer operator was negligent in failing to see the plaintiff in any event and the verdict exonerating the defendant-respondent was against the weight of the evidence. (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Trial Term, for defendant Reiss for no cause of action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of negligent operation of excavating equipment. The order denied a motion for a new trial.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 811, 197 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blando-v-reiss-nyappdiv-1960.