Brand v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

249 A.D. 630, 291 N.Y.S. 260, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5311
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1936·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover for personal injuries and for loss of services, the undisputed evidence shows that the accident took place when plaintiff Matilda Brand stepped into a pool of water and fell as she [631] was entering a turnstile on the platform of defendant’s subway station. The complaint was dismissed at the close of plaintiffs' case. Judgment affirmed., with costs. There was no showing of negligence for which defendant is liable. (Kraus v. Wolf, 253 N. Y. 300; Boyne v. City of Buffalo, 269 id. 657.) Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial upon the ground that there was a question of fact for determination by the jury as to negligence and contributory negligence.

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

Brand v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 249 A.D. 630, 291 N.Y.S. 260, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

249 A.D. 630 (Brand v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abair v. City of New York
269 A.D. 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)