Braverman v. Hart

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Braverman v. Hart

105 N.Y.S. 107

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 27, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 N.Y.S. 107 (Braverman v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Braverman v. Hart, 105 N.Y.S. 107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.

The judgment in this case must be re-_ versed. The evidence is undisputed that the defendant some time prior to the accident had purchased the automobile and delivered it to Boes, who was driving it when the plaintiff was injured, under an agreement by which Boes was to use it for hire, and pay the purchase price to defendant out of the money derived from its use; that the defendant never had any control, directly or indirectly, over the machine after it left his possession, and never rode in it. Boes was not in the employ, or under the control or direction, of the defendant in any way, and no relation of master and servant existed between the defendant and Boes at the time the accident occurred. Clearly, if Boes was guilty of negligence in his use of the automobile, this defendant is not chargeable therewith.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.

The judgment in this case must be re-_ versed. The evidence is undisputed that the defendant some time prior to the accident had purchased the automobile and delivered it to Boes, who was driving it when the plaintiff was injured, under an agreement by which Boes was to use it for hire, and pay the purchase price to defendant out of the money derived from its use; that the defendant never had any control, directly or indirectly, over the machine after it left his possession, and never rode in it. Boes was not in the employ, or under the control or direction, of the defendant in any way, and no relation of master and servant existed between the defendant and Boes at the time the accident occurred. Clearly, if Boes was guilty of negligence in his use of the automobile, this defendant is not chargeable therewith.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 N.Y.S. 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braverman-v-hart-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack