Boles v. Jump

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boles v. Jump

254 A.D. 772, 5 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554

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

DecidedMay 27, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 772 (Boles v. Jump) 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

Boles v. Jump, 254 A.D. 772, 5 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

'Judgments dismissing the complaints on the merits at the close of the plaintiffs’ case reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. We are of opinion that, upon the facts established, the questions of negligence and contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. [773]*773(Metzger y. Cushman's Sons, Inc., 243 N. Y. 118, and Shuman v. Hall, 246 id. 51.) Hagarty, Carswell and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs as to plaintiff Williams. He dissents as to plaintiff Boles and votes to affirm as to Mm, on the ground that he was negligent as matter of law. Johnston, J., dissents as to both plaintiffs, on the ground that the negligence of plaintiff Boles was the sole cause of the accident.

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

'Judgments dismissing the complaints on the merits at the close of the plaintiffs’ case reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. We are of opinion that, upon the facts established, the questions of negligence and contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. [773]*773(Metzger y. Cushman's Sons, Inc., 243 N. Y. 118, and Shuman v. Hall, 246 id. 51.) Hagarty, Carswell and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs as to plaintiff Williams. He dissents as to plaintiff Boles and votes to affirm as to Mm, on the ground that he was negligent as matter of law. Johnston, J., dissents as to both plaintiffs, on the ground that the negligence of plaintiff Boles was the sole cause of the accident.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 772, 5 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boles-v-jump-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack