Doyle v. Carborundum Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doyle v. Carborundum Co.

9 A.D.2d 765, 192 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6366

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 A.D.2d 765 (Doyle v. Carborundum 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

Doyle v. Carborundum Co., 9 A.D.2d 765, 192 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment, entered on a motion for a directed verdict, dismissing the complaint. The appellant was injured as the result of the breaking of a grinding wheel or disc manufactured by respondent. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. There was no proof that respondent’s method of manufacture was negligent or improper, and there was insufficient evidence that respondent failed to use due care in testing the wheel after the manufacture thereof to require submission of the evidence to the jury (see, e.g., Kalinowski v. Byerson <& Son, 242 App. Div. 43, affd. 270 N. Y. 532; Welsh v. Cornell, 168 N. Y. 508; Matter of Case, 214 N. Y. 199, 203-204). Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

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 motion for a directed verdict, dismissing the complaint. The appellant was injured as the result of the breaking of a grinding wheel or disc manufactured by respondent. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. There was no proof that respondent’s method of manufacture was negligent or improper, and there was insufficient evidence that respondent failed to use due care in testing the wheel after the manufacture thereof to require submission of the evidence to the jury (see, e.g., Kalinowski v. Byerson <& Son, 242 App. Div. 43, affd. 270 N. Y. 532; Welsh v. Cornell, 168 N. Y. 508; Matter of Case, 214 N. Y. 199, 203-204). Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 765, 192 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-carborundum-co-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack