Loeber v. Roberts

Superior Court of New York

Loeber v. Roberts

9 N.Y.S. 718, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 344

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMay 5, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 9 N.Y.S. 718 (Loeber v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loeber v. Roberts, 9 N.Y.S. 718, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 344 (superctny 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It seems to be at the least doubtful that defendant could not maintain his defense on the trial although he should fail to prove the specific names of the materials which he is called upon to specify by the order granted below. It would promote the just investigation of the case not to •call upon the defendant now and finally to specify “what highly volatile, Inflammable, or dangerous materials were used by plaintiff, and by their inflammable character took fire, and what dangerous, volatile, inflammable, or highly combustible material likely to ignite at a low temperature, or to undergo chemical decomposition and to generate reaction, whereby combustion might ensue, were carelessly kept and exposed in plaintiff’s room.” The part of the order described should be modified so as to require the defendant to furnish a verified bill of particulars specifying the materials referred to, •or, in case he states in the bill that he is not able to specify them, or any of them, to give a sufficient reason why he is not able to be more specific, and further to give the description of such material as fully as he is able to. The second requirement of the order should be omitted. It is: “Wherein said materials were negligently and carelessly used or exposed by said plaintiff so as to cause said fire.”. This involves the defendant being confined in his evidence in a matter that is now as much within the knowledge of the plaintiff •as of the defendant, and is not a case where it is necessary for the plaintiff to know what he will be called upon to meet. He was bound to take ordinary care as to the materials he had in his rooms. He knows what kind of care, in fact, should have been taken of them. The defendant, by his answer, proposes to prove that he did not take the proper care. The order, modified as has been indicated, should be affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

It seems to be at the least doubtful that defendant could not maintain his defense on the trial although he should fail to prove the specific names of the materials which he is called upon to specify by the order granted below. It would promote the just investigation of the case not to •call upon the defendant now and finally to specify “what highly volatile, Inflammable, or dangerous materials were used by plaintiff, and by their inflammable character took fire, and what dangerous, volatile, inflammable, or highly combustible material likely to ignite at a low temperature, or to undergo chemical decomposition and to generate reaction, whereby combustion might ensue, were carelessly kept and exposed in plaintiff’s room.” The part of the order described should be modified so as to require the defendant to furnish a verified bill of particulars specifying the materials referred to, •or, in case he states in the bill that he is not able to specify them, or any of them, to give a sufficient reason why he is not able to be more specific, and further to give the description of such material as fully as he is able to. The second requirement of the order should be omitted. It is: “Wherein said materials were negligently and carelessly used or exposed by said plaintiff so as to cause said fire.”. This involves the defendant being confined in his evidence in a matter that is now as much within the knowledge of the plaintiff •as of the defendant, and is not a case where it is necessary for the plaintiff to know what he will be called upon to meet. He was bound to take ordinary care as to the materials he had in his rooms. He knows what kind of care, in fact, should have been taken of them. The defendant, by his answer, proposes to prove that he did not take the proper care. The order, modified as has been indicated, should be affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.Y.S. 718, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loeber-v-roberts-superctny-1890.