Eargle v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eargle v. City of New York

22 A.D.2d 673, 253 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 673 (Eargle v. City of New York) 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

Eargle v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 673, 253 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellants. Plaintiff was injured while driving his truck north on Brook Avenue near 135th Street. There is an underpass at this point and defendants were doing construction work in connection with the underpass. Defendants had erected two towers immediately south of the underpass entrance. Resting on these two towers and 13 feet above the roadway were two parallel I-beams. The northerly of these rails fell and struck plaintiff’s truck, injuring him in the act. Plaintiff relies on res ipsa loquitur. The record shows that the beams were adequately affixed to the towers by spikes driven through holes in the beams. There was no indication of wear either in the towers or the beams. In fact, the evidence is clear that the northerly of the two beams (the one that fell) was caused to fall by being pushed off the tower by movement of the southerly beam, which bad been shoved forward. The physical facts strongly indicate that the movement of the southerly beam was occasioned by some sudden contact, most likely the plaintiff’s own truck. The verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence. Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellants. Plaintiff was injured while driving his truck north on Brook Avenue near 135th Street. There is an underpass at this point and defendants were doing construction work in connection with the underpass. Defendants had erected two towers immediately south of the underpass entrance. Resting on these two towers and 13 feet above the roadway were two parallel I-beams. The northerly of these rails fell and struck plaintiff’s truck, injuring him in the act. Plaintiff relies on res ipsa loquitur. The record shows that the beams were adequately affixed to the towers by spikes driven through holes in the beams. There was no indication of wear either in the towers or the beams. In fact, the evidence is clear that the northerly of the two beams (the one that fell) was caused to fall by being pushed off the tower by movement of the southerly beam, which bad been shoved forward. The physical facts strongly indicate that the movement of the southerly beam was occasioned by some sudden contact, most likely the plaintiff’s own truck. The verdict is against the weight of the credible evidence. Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 673, 253 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eargle-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1964.