Breedveld v. A. L. Hartridge Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Breedveld v. A. L. Hartridge Co.

239 A.D. 800

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1933·Published

Opinion

Judgment as amended nunc pro tunc by order dated July 25, 1932, and order denying' motion for a new trial reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellants to abide the event. In our opinion, the proofs failed to establish the negligence of the defendants and do show contributory negligence on the part of the decedent. Rapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

Judgment as amended nunc pro tunc by order dated July 25, 1932, and order denying' motion for a new trial reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellants to abide the event. In our opinion, the proofs failed to establish the negligence of the defendants and do show contributory negligence on the part of the decedent. Rapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Breedveld v. A. L. Hartridge Co., 239 A.D. 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

239 A.D. 800 (Breedveld v. A. L. Hartridge Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.