Kampf v. Yokell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kampf v. Yokell

267 A.D. 914, 47 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 267 A.D. 914 (Kampf v. Yokell) 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

Kampf v. Yokell, 267 A.D. 914, 47 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by permission from an order of the Appellate Term reversing on the law a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff and dismissing the complaint, and from the judgment entered pursuant to said order. Order of the Appellate Term reversed on the law and the facts, the judgment entered thereon vacated, and the judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff affirmed, with costs in all courts. We find that the infant plaintiff did not assume the risk as a matter of law. There was an express invitation to plaintiff, held out by defendants, to place her coat in the dressing room and thus yield her personal vigilance during her working hours. There was a bailment for the mutual benefit of plaintiff and defendants. (Labor Law, § 379, as implemented by rule 159 of the Rules of the New York State Industrial Board; 4 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed.] p. 2904.) There was a consequent duty upon defendants to deliver the coat on demand or to account for its absence. Their failure to do either is prima facie evidence of negligence. (Claflin et al. v. Meyer, 75 N. Y. 260, 262.) In any event, there was a question of fact as to whether the defendants exercised the degree of care required, and the finding of the trial court is not against the weight of the evidence. (Bunnell v. Stern et al., 122 N. Y. 539.) Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Aldrich, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by permission from an order of the Appellate Term reversing on the law a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff and dismissing the complaint, and from the judgment entered pursuant to said order. Order of the Appellate Term reversed on the law and the facts, the judgment entered thereon vacated, and the judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff affirmed, with costs in all courts. We find that the infant plaintiff did not assume the risk as a matter of law. There was an express invitation to plaintiff, held out by defendants, to place her coat in the dressing room and thus yield her personal vigilance during her working hours. There was a bailment for the mutual benefit of plaintiff and defendants. (Labor Law, § 379, as implemented by rule 159 of the Rules of the New York State Industrial Board; 4 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed.] p. 2904.) There was a consequent duty upon defendants to deliver the coat on demand or to account for its absence. Their failure to do either is prima facie evidence of negligence. (Claflin et al. v. Meyer, 75 N. Y. 260, 262.) In any event, there was a question of fact as to whether the defendants exercised the degree of care required, and the finding of the trial court is not against the weight of the evidence. (Bunnell v. Stern et al., 122 N. Y. 539.) Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Aldrich, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 914, 47 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kampf-v-yokell-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack