Kaplan v. J. C. Lyons Building & Operating Co.

61 Misc. 315, 113 N.Y.S. 516
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 15, 1908·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Hendrick, J.

The weight of the evidence does not sustain the plaintiff’s contention. He is uncorroborated, and describes a condition of affairs that is highly improbable, if not impossible. It is not contended that the elevator and [316] machinery were not in perfect order, so that the only negligence attempted to he shown was in the act of defendant’s servant, the elevator attendant. On that point the evidence of the defendant is positive that the elevator man was not in the building at the time; and it would require more than the impossible story of the plaintiff to overcome that testimony. Moreover, I do not think that the plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence was shown. He walked into the elevator while it stood there empty and without any one in control. He placed himself in a position of danger. The mere fact that the door was open was not an invitation to get into' the elevator when no one was in charge of it. Green v. Urban Contracting & Heating Co., 106 App. Div. 460.

Giegerich and Ford, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to-appellant to abide event.

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

Kaplan v. J. C. Lyons Building & Operating Co., 61 Misc. 315, 113 N.Y.S. 516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

61 Misc. 315 (Kaplan v. J. C. Lyons Building & Operating Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sgandurra v. 220 Estates, Inc.
185 Misc. 283 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)
Sackheim v. . Pigueron
109 N.E. 109 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)