James v. E. C. Roberts Co.

New York Supreme Court

James v. E. C. Roberts Co.

145 Misc. 648, 260 N.Y.S. 144, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1557

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 27, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 Misc. 648 (James v. E. C. Roberts Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James v. E. C. Roberts Co., 145 Misc. 648, 260 N.Y.S. 144, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1557 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuff, J.

A fence was erected at Canal street and Bowery. Decedent, standing in the highway, was killed by a passing auto[649]*649mobile. Plaintiff seeks to hold the builder of the fence on the ground that the obstruction of the sidewalk by defendant was so unreasonable and unnecessary that it amounted to negligence or that the fence was a nuisance. I do not find in the complaint an allegation that decedent was at the point on the highway where he was struck because of the presence of the fence. In other words, he does not say in effect that the existence of the fence, obstructing his reasonable and proper use of the sidewalk as a pedestrian, was the cause of his going, or being forced to go, into the highway. Plaintiff charges that defendant violated its duty in erecting the fence, but he does not connect that alleged act of negligence with the incident that brought about the death of decedent.

Motion granted, without prejudice to plaintiff to amend within twenty days.

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

Cuff, J.

A fence was erected at Canal street and Bowery. Decedent, standing in the highway, was killed by a passing auto[649]*649mobile. Plaintiff seeks to hold the builder of the fence on the ground that the obstruction of the sidewalk by defendant was so unreasonable and unnecessary that it amounted to negligence or that the fence was a nuisance. I do not find in the complaint an allegation that decedent was at the point on the highway where he was struck because of the presence of the fence. In other words, he does not say in effect that the existence of the fence, obstructing his reasonable and proper use of the sidewalk as a pedestrian, was the cause of his going, or being forced to go, into the highway. Plaintiff charges that defendant violated its duty in erecting the fence, but he does not connect that alleged act of negligence with the incident that brought about the death of decedent.

Motion granted, without prejudice to plaintiff to amend within twenty days.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 648, 260 N.Y.S. 144, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-e-c-roberts-co-nysupct-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack