Grudberg v. Ehret

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Grudberg v. Ehret

79 Misc. 627, 140 N.Y.S. 379

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 Misc. 627 (Grudberg v. Ehret) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grudberg v. Ehret, 79 Misc. 627, 140 N.Y.S. 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Gerard, J.

The evidence offered by plaintiff disclosed that plaintiff and another boy ran after defendant’s automobile, and the other boy jumped on it, and then when some one yelled “ Get off,” the other boy tried to get off, but in getting down got stuck between the barrels on the automobile and the plaintiff went to his assistance and pulled out his foot. At this time the automobile had stopped, and, the friend being free, plaintiff jumped off, but just at this time the automobile, without warning, backed up hill a distance of five feet, running over the plaintiff.

It makes no difference whether the friend was a trespasser on the automobile, or whether plaintiff came to his assistance or not. The plaintiff had a right to be in the public street. The automobile of defendant was at a stop and the unexplained sudden backing of the automobile, without any warning, calls at least for some explanation on the part of the defendant. See Lundy v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 1 Misc. Rep. 100 ; Smith v. American Ice Co., 152 App. Div. 484.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Seabuby and Bijub, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Gerard, J.

The evidence offered by plaintiff disclosed that plaintiff and another boy ran after defendant’s automobile, and the other boy jumped on it, and then when some one yelled “ Get off,” the other boy tried to get off, but in getting down got stuck between the barrels on the automobile and the plaintiff went to his assistance and pulled out his foot. At this time the automobile had stopped, and, the friend being free, plaintiff jumped off, but just at this time the automobile, without warning, backed up hill a distance of five feet, running over the plaintiff.

It makes no difference whether the friend was a trespasser on the automobile, or whether plaintiff came to his assistance or not. The plaintiff had a right to be in the public street. The automobile of defendant was at a stop and the unexplained sudden backing of the automobile, without any warning, calls at least for some explanation on the part of the defendant. See Lundy v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 1 Misc. Rep. 100 ; Smith v. American Ice Co., 152 App. Div. 484.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Seabuby and Bijub, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 Misc. 627, 140 N.Y.S. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grudberg-v-ehret-nyappterm-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack