Lathem v. Double E. of Yonkers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lathem v. Double E. of Yonkers, Inc.

53 A.D.2d 921, 385 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15702

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

DecidedJuly 27, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 921 (Lathem v. Double E. of Yonkers, Inc.) 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

Lathem v. Double E. of Yonkers, Inc., 53 A.D.2d 921, 385 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 27, 1975, which dismissed the complaint at the end of their case, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No findings of fact were presented for review. Two eight-year-old girls in a supermarket had to use the ladies’ room. An employee directed them to a staircase, but did not supervise them. The girls found a conveyer belt which was not fenced off near the staircase. They decided to take the "fun way” upstairs, got on the belt, started it, and rode to the next floor, at which point the infant plaintiff slipped when she tried to jump off, thereby injuring herself. These facts state a cause of action for negligence in failing to protect youngsters from a potentially dangerous conveyor belt. Proximate cause is sufficiently established, applying the criteria set forth in the case of Pagan v Goldberger (51 AD2d 508). In particular, such an accident could result from a foreseeable misuse of the conveyor belt. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 27, 1975, which dismissed the complaint at the end of their case, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No findings of fact were presented for review. Two eight-year-old girls in a supermarket had to use the ladies’ room. An employee directed them to a staircase, but did not supervise them. The girls found a conveyer belt which was not fenced off near the staircase. They decided to take the "fun way” upstairs, got on the belt, started it, and rode to the next floor, at which point the infant plaintiff slipped when she tried to jump off, thereby injuring herself. These facts state a cause of action for negligence in failing to protect youngsters from a potentially dangerous conveyor belt. Proximate cause is sufficiently established, applying the criteria set forth in the case of Pagan v Goldberger (51 AD2d 508). In particular, such an accident could result from a foreseeable misuse of the conveyor belt. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 921, 385 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lathem-v-double-e-of-yonkers-inc-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack