Grassmann v. Fromm

New York Court of Appeals

Grassmann v. Fromm

56 N.E.2d 114, 292 N.Y. 699, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1853

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 25, 1944·Published

Opinion

Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Inhere was evidence from which the jury could have found that the plaintiff was a licensee to whom the defendant owed the duty to refrain from an act of affirmative negligence. In those circumstances the questions of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence were for the jury. No opinion.

Concur: LehmaN, Ch. J., LottgheaN, Lewis, CoNwat, Desmond and Thachee, JJ. Taking no part: Bippey, J.

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

Judgments reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Inhere was evidence from which the jury could have found that the plaintiff was a licensee to whom the defendant owed the duty to refrain from an act of affirmative negligence. In those circumstances the questions of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence were for the jury. No opinion.

Concur: LehmaN, Ch. J., LottgheaN, Lewis, CoNwat, Desmond and Thachee, JJ. Taking no part: Bippey, J.

Grassmann v. Fromm, 56 N.E.2d 114, 292 N.Y. 699, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1853 (N.Y. 1944).

Pincite

56 N.E.2d 114 (Grassmann v. Fromm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.