Haverstick v. Clarence Hansen & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haverstick v. Clarence Hansen & Sons, Inc.

250 A.D. 859, 294 N.Y.S. 791, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9434

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

DecidedApril 9, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 859 (Haverstick v. Clarence Hansen & Sons, Inc.) 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

Haverstick v. Clarence Hansen & Sons, Inc., 250 A.D. 859, 294 N.Y.S. 791, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she stepped on a broken grating in front of her own private dwelling and fell to the cellar, judgment in favor of the plaintiff on a verdict of a jury reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The inferences to be drawn from the facts established were within the province of the jury, and clearly the jury, under the proof here, was justified in finding that the iron grating was broken by the defendant’s employees. The defendant, however, having finished its work and left the premises at least two days before the accident, is not hable in tort where it is not in occupation or control of the property. Furthermore, the plaintiff is charged with the knowledge acquired by her representatives, who were the sole occupants of the house and in charge of it, and the defendant was not bound to anticipate any danger to plaintiff from the condition the premises were left in by its employees. Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result; Taylor, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

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

In an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when she stepped on a broken grating in front of her own private dwelling and fell to the cellar, judgment in favor of the plaintiff on a verdict of a jury reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The inferences to be drawn from the facts established were within the province of the jury, and clearly the jury, under the proof here, was justified in finding that the iron grating was broken by the defendant’s employees. The defendant, however, having finished its work and left the premises at least two days before the accident, is not hable in tort where it is not in occupation or control of the property. Furthermore, the plaintiff is charged with the knowledge acquired by her representatives, who were the sole occupants of the house and in charge of it, and the defendant was not bound to anticipate any danger to plaintiff from the condition the premises were left in by its employees. Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result; Taylor, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 859, 294 N.Y.S. 791, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haverstick-v-clarence-hansen-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1937.