Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

20 A.D.2d 657, 246 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4527
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 20, 1964·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, the defendant King Kullen Grocery Company, Inc., by permission of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, appeals from so much of its order, dated June 22, 1962, as affirmed a judgment of the former Municipal Court of the City of New York, entered January 3, 1962 on a jury’s verdict, insofar as such judgment was in favor of plaintiffs and against said defendant. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. The proof in this record, as submitted by plaintiffs, showed that the female plaintiff was shopping in said defendant’s supermarket; that as she stood before a display of bottles filled with a carbonated beverage, one of the bottles exploded and cut her face; and that she had not touched any of the bottles. No evidence was offered by defendants. In our opinion, this proof was sufficient to establish, prima facie, the negligence of said defendant and to shift to it the burden of going forward with evidence that it was not at fault, since it had exclusive control of the supermarket and the bottles (Day v. Grand Union Co., 280 App. Div. 253, affd. 304 N. Y. 821). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 20 A.D.2d 657, 246 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

20 A.D.2d 657 (Hyams v. King Kullen Grocery Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DeSimone v. Inserra Supermarkets, Inc.
207 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Dermatossian v. New York City Transit Authority
492 N.E.2d 1200 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)