Hinkley v. John E. Redman Sand & Gravel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hinkley v. John E. Redman Sand & Gravel Corp.

256 A.D. 1053, 10 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6036

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1053 (Hinkley v. John E. Redman Sand & Gravel Corp.) 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

Hinkley v. John E. Redman Sand & Gravel Corp., 256 A.D. 1053, 10 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: While the intestate was engaged in helping his employer to take sand from the defendant’s pit for delivery to one of the defendant’s customers, and thus being an invited person, he was injured by sand which fell from a bank at the place where he was working. He died as a result of his injuries. Questions of fact were presented as to whether the danger was obvious and as to whether there was a lack of warning and of due care on the part of the defendant, and the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor was not against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: While the intestate was engaged in helping his employer to take sand from the defendant’s pit for delivery to one of the defendant’s customers, and thus being an invited person, he was injured by sand which fell from a bank at the place where he was working. He died as a result of his injuries. Questions of fact were presented as to whether the danger was obvious and as to whether there was a lack of warning and of due care on the part of the defendant, and the verdict in the plaintiff’s favor was not against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1053, 10 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinkley-v-john-e-redman-sand-gravel-corp-nyappdiv-1939.