Kelly v. Laundry Trucking Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kelly v. Laundry Trucking Co.

274 A.D. 812, 79 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3471

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

DecidedJune 21, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D. 812 (Kelly v. Laundry Trucking Co.) 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

Kelly v. Laundry Trucking Co., 274 A.D. 812, 79 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered when plaintiffs were struck at a street intersection by an automobile, owned and operated by defendant Murphy, which was being pushed by an automobile truck owned by the corporate defendant. On appeal by defendant Murphy, the judgment, insofar as it is against said defendant, is unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. On appeal by defendant Laundry Trucking Co., Inc., the judgment, insofar as it is against said defendant, is reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. In our opinion it was error to sustain objections to questions seeking to develop fully the instructions given the operator of the truck by his employer. (Psota v. Long Island R. R. Co., 246 N. Y. 388; Conca v. Cushman’s Sons, Inc., 269 App. Div. 814.) There was further error in the charge of the court that if the owner of the truck reserved to itself the right to determine what business the employee should do and the manner in which he should do it, the employer was liable for the employee’s negligence even though the employee disobeyed the instructions of the employer. (Psota v. Long Island R. R. Co., supra; Flack v. Stahl-Meyer, Inc., 258 App. Div. 961; Fisher v. New York Good Humor, Inc., 265 App. Div. 967; Goldberg v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 227 N. Y. 465; Rolfe v. Hewitt, 227 N. Y. 486.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Nolan, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered when plaintiffs were struck at a street intersection by an automobile, owned and operated by defendant Murphy, which was being pushed by an automobile truck owned by the corporate defendant. On appeal by defendant Murphy, the judgment, insofar as it is against said defendant, is unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. On appeal by defendant Laundry Trucking Co., Inc., the judgment, insofar as it is against said defendant, is reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. In our opinion it was error to sustain objections to questions seeking to develop fully the instructions given the operator of the truck by his employer. (Psota v. Long Island R. R. Co., 246 N. Y. 388; Conca v. Cushman’s Sons, Inc., 269 App. Div. 814.) There was further error in the charge of the court that if the owner of the truck reserved to itself the right to determine what business the employee should do and the manner in which he should do it, the employer was liable for the employee’s negligence even though the employee disobeyed the instructions of the employer. (Psota v. Long Island R. R. Co., supra; Flack v. Stahl-Meyer, Inc., 258 App. Div. 961; Fisher v. New York Good Humor, Inc., 265 App. Div. 967; Goldberg v. Borden’s Condensed Milk Co., 227 N. Y. 465; Rolfe v. Hewitt, 227 N. Y. 486.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Nolan, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 812, 79 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-laundry-trucking-co-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack