Klein v. Brooklyn Majestic Theatre Co.

149 A.D. 926, 133 N.Y.S. 1129
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 1912·No. Appeal No. 1·Published

Opinion

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbm-sements, and motion denied, with costs. We think that the order for the second examination should stand. It appears possible that the same cause required the amputation of both breasts, and if so, the plaintiff could not attribute the injury to the right breast, for which she seeks damages, to the negligence, or wholly to the negligence of the defendant complained of in this action. Defendant is not chargeable with shortcomings in the matter, and the facts shown justified the Special Term in granting the second order, which is properly limited in its scope. (See Dambmann v. Butterfield, 15 Hun, 495.) Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Woodward, JJ., concm-red.

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

Klein v. Brooklyn Majestic Theatre Co., 149 A.D. 926, 133 N.Y.S. 1129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

149 A.D. 926 (Klein v. Brooklyn Majestic Theatre Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.