De Rienzo v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Rienzo v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

6 A.D.2d 832, 175 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 832 (De Rienzo v. Brooklyn Union Gas 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.

Bluebook

De Rienzo v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 6 A.D.2d 832, 175 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal

is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondents. Respondents were injured as the result of a flash explosion or flash fire allegedly caused by the ignition of illuminating or manufactured gas leaking from appellant’s gas main. Judgment reversed, without costs, and a new trial granted. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. It was error for the court to refuse to grant appellant’s request to charge “ that if the jury finds there was no leak of manufactured gas, the verdict must be for the defendant.” Nolan, P. J., Wenzel and Beldoek, JJ., concur; Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: A fair question of fact as to liability was presented to the jury. The trial court did not refuse the request. The court already had charged that the action was based on a leak in the gas main and reiterated that charge, in response to the request, by observing “ That is a question for you gentlemen.”

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal

is from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondents. Respondents were injured as the result of a flash explosion or flash fire allegedly caused by the ignition of illuminating or manufactured gas leaking from appellant’s gas main. Judgment reversed, without costs, and a new trial granted. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. It was error for the court to refuse to grant appellant’s request to charge “ that if the jury finds there was no leak of manufactured gas, the verdict must be for the defendant.” Nolan, P. J., Wenzel and Beldoek, JJ., concur; Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: A fair question of fact as to liability was presented to the jury. The trial court did not refuse the request. The court already had charged that the action was based on a leak in the gas main and reiterated that charge, in response to the request, by observing “ That is a question for you gentlemen.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 832, 175 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-rienzo-v-brooklyn-union-gas-co-nyappdiv-1958.