Boylan v. Brown

New York Supreme Court

Boylan v. Brown

17 N.Y.S. 648, 43 N.Y. St. Rep. 412, 63 Hun 627, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 428

DecidedFebruary 8, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.S. 648 (Boylan v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boylan v. Brown, 17 N.Y.S. 648, 43 N.Y. St. Rep. 412, 63 Hun 627, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 428 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

The point made by the defendants, that, “the alleged defect in the construction and condition of the dump being patent and discoverable upon supervisual inspection, the plaintiff’s assignor had the same means of knowledge in regard to it as the defendants; and if it was negligence on the part of the defendants to provide such an appliance for use of the plaintiff’s assignor in unloading the horse and cart, it was also negligence on the part [649]*649of plaintiff’s assignor to drive the horse and cart on such dump, ”—is good law, and decisive of this appeal. Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N. Y. 396, 5 N. E. Rep. 56; Cahill v. Hilton, 106 N. Y. 512, 13 N. E. Rep. 339; Splittorf v. State, 108 N. Y. 205, 15 N. E. Rep. 322; McQuigan v. Railroad Co., 122 N. Y. 618, 26 N. E. Rep. 13; McGrath v. Walsh, (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 705. But in addition it may be added that there was no adequate proof that the device for dumping here used was not proper for the purpose it was intended to serve. Again, it is doubtful if the nature or condition of this platform either caused or contributed to the accident, but rather that the accident was proximately caused by fright of the horse or unskillfulness of other drivers using the dump at the same time. A nonsuit was properly granted, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Pratt, J.

The point made by the defendants, that, “the alleged defect in the construction and condition of the dump being patent and discoverable upon supervisual inspection, the plaintiff’s assignor had the same means of knowledge in regard to it as the defendants; and if it was negligence on the part of the defendants to provide such an appliance for use of the plaintiff’s assignor in unloading the horse and cart, it was also negligence on the part [649]*649of plaintiff’s assignor to drive the horse and cart on such dump, ”—is good law, and decisive of this appeal. Marsh v. Chickering, 101 N. Y. 396, 5 N. E. Rep. 56; Cahill v. Hilton, 106 N. Y. 512, 13 N. E. Rep. 339; Splittorf v. State, 108 N. Y. 205, 15 N. E. Rep. 322; McQuigan v. Railroad Co., 122 N. Y. 618, 26 N. E. Rep. 13; McGrath v. Walsh, (Com. Pl. N. Y.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 705. But in addition it may be added that there was no adequate proof that the device for dumping here used was not proper for the purpose it was intended to serve. Again, it is doubtful if the nature or condition of this platform either caused or contributed to the accident, but rather that the accident was proximately caused by fright of the horse or unskillfulness of other drivers using the dump at the same time. A nonsuit was properly granted, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.S. 648, 43 N.Y. St. Rep. 412, 63 Hun 627, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boylan-v-brown-nysupct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack