Hicks v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hicks v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.

248 A.D. 901, 290 N.Y.S. 623, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8010

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 23, 1936·Published

Opinion

Judgment in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs on the merits reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. There were questions of fact which should have been submitted to the jury: (1) Did the defendant, a lessee of a public amusement park, breach the duty cast upon it to exercise vigilance for the safety of its patrons? (2) Was a defective condition of the floor, together with the oiling thereof by defendant, the proximate cause of the accident? (3) Did the negligence of the [902]*902plaintiff wife contribute to the accident? Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs on the merits reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. There were questions of fact which should have been submitted to the jury: (1) Did the defendant, a lessee of a public amusement park, breach the duty cast upon it to exercise vigilance for the safety of its patrons? (2) Was a defective condition of the floor, together with the oiling thereof by defendant, the proximate cause of the accident? (3) Did the negligence of the [902]*902plaintiff wife contribute to the accident? Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Hicks v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., 248 A.D. 901, 290 N.Y.S. 623, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

248 A.D. 901 (Hicks v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.