Colandria v. China Mutual Steam Navigation Co.
This text of 226 A.D. 681 (Colandria v. China Mutual Steam Navigation Co.) 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.
Opinion
Judgment reversed upon the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in proceeding in the dark corridor when there was no special stress of circumstances requiring him to proceed without first finding out whether there were obstructions to his safe progress. Especially is this so, when defendant furnished a safe means of exit that eliminated the necessity of decedent proceeding into the dark corridor. (Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 N. Y. 413; Williams v. Trecartin, 166 App. Div. 745.) Hagarty, Seeger, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
226 A.D. 681, 233 N.Y.S. 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colandria-v-china-mutual-steam-navigation-co-nyappdiv-1929.