Kuval v. Consolidated Gas Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kuval v. Consolidated Gas Co.

125 Misc. 167, 210 N.Y.S. 477, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 865

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 125 Misc. 167 (Kuval v. Consolidated Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kuval v. Consolidated Gas Co., 125 Misc. 167, 210 N.Y.S. 477, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam:

The charge of the learned trial court that plaintiffs were free from contributory negligence as matter of law was erroneous. Plaintiff and her husband, after finding their apartment, according to their story, filled with gas, returned to it at bed time and slept there through the night. The plaintiff claims that the comforter which was over her bed smelled of gas. These circumstances made the question of contributory negligence one for the jury and the request to so charge should have been granted. \

In view of this error we do not express an opinion relative to other questions presented by the appellants as they deal with testimony and the inferences to be drawn therefrom.

Judgments reversed and new trial ordered, with fifteen dollars costs to appellants in each case to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijub, McGoldrick and Levy, JJ.

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

Pee Cubiam:

The charge of the learned trial court that plaintiffs were free from contributory negligence as matter of law was erroneous. Plaintiff and her husband, after finding their apartment, according to their story, filled with gas, returned to it at bed time and slept there through the night. The plaintiff claims that the comforter which was over her bed smelled of gas. These circumstances made the question of contributory negligence one for the jury and the request to so charge should have been granted. \

In view of this error we do not express an opinion relative to other questions presented by the appellants as they deal with testimony and the inferences to be drawn therefrom.

Judgments reversed and new trial ordered, with fifteen dollars costs to appellants in each case to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijub, McGoldrick and Levy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 Misc. 167, 210 N.Y.S. 477, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuval-v-consolidated-gas-co-nyappterm-1925.