Colandria v. China Mutual Steam Navigation Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colandria v. China Mutual Steam Navigation Co.

226 A.D. 681, 233 N.Y.S. 584

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1929·Published

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

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.

Colandria v. China Mutual Steam Navigation Co., 226 A.D. 681, 233 N.Y.S. 584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

226 A.D. 681 (Colandria v. China Mutual Steam Navigation Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related