Halsey v. Ford Motor Co.

24 A.D.2d 826, 264 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3269
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 21, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 826 (Halsey v. Ford Motor 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
Halsey v. Ford Motor Co., 24 A.D.2d 826, 264 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to either party, and complaint dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff’s recovery is based upon a jury finding of breach of implied warranty of fitness of a cigarette lighter sold by defendants as an integral part of an automobile. The car was destroyed by fire after having been left unattended in a rural area. There was some proof that upon first discovery of the fire it was concentrated on the dash where the lighter was located. There is also proof that in the five months plaintiff had owned the car the lighter had malfunctioned but such had only occurred when the article was used. There is no proof that on the day in question it had been so used. Giving plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference which can reasonably be drawn from the facts (Sagorsky v. Malyon, 307 N. Y. 584, 586) we conclude that the trial court [827]*827upon the proof adduced erred in submitting the issues to the jury. “ When the precise cause of an accident is left to conjecture and may be as reasonably attributed to a condition for which no liability attaches as to one for which it does, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and the evidence should not be submitted to the jury.” (White v. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 220 N. Y. 131, 135-136.) (Appeal from judgment of Steuben Trial Term for plaintiff in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Veeehio, JJ.

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

Related

Harrison v. Bill Cairns Pontiac of Marlow Heights, Inc.
549 A.2d 385 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1988)
Brandon v. Caterpillar Tractor Corp.
125 A.D.2d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Fox v. Corning Glass Works, Inc.
81 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 A.D.2d 826, 264 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halsey-v-ford-motor-co-nyappdiv-1965.