Lofgren v. Protane Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lofgren v. Protane Corp.

259 A.D. 785, 18 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 785 (Lofgren v. Protane Corp.) 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

Lofgren v. Protane Corp., 259 A.D. 785, 18 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Harris and McCurn, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal in the following memorandum: The following facts, if they exist, may be proven under the complaint as now before us: The explosion came about through the negligence of the agent of the defendant, the chance of such an explosion occurring being known to him and not known to the plaintiffs. The defendant’s agent could have warned the plaintiffs of the probability of the explosion, and in not doing so he placed them under a risk of injury that was not normal, or not necessary, to their occupation, nor to the performance of their duties. These facts would give rise to liability on the part of the defendant to the plaintiffs. (Raymond v. Republic Light, Heat & Power Co., Inc., 236 App. Div. 880; affd., 262 N. Y. 498; Meiers v. Koch Brewery, 229 id. 10.) (The judgment dismisses the complaint in an action by volunteer firemen for claimed negligent starting of a fire.) Present — ■ Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Harris and McCurn, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal in the following memorandum: The following facts, if they exist, may be proven under the complaint as now before us: The explosion came about through the negligence of the agent of the defendant, the chance of such an explosion occurring being known to him and not known to the plaintiffs. The defendant’s agent could have warned the plaintiffs of the probability of the explosion, and in not doing so he placed them under a risk of injury that was not normal, or not necessary, to their occupation, nor to the performance of their duties. These facts would give rise to liability on the part of the defendant to the plaintiffs. (Raymond v. Republic Light, Heat & Power Co., Inc., 236 App. Div. 880; affd., 262 N. Y. 498; Meiers v. Koch Brewery, 229 id. 10.) (The judgment dismisses the complaint in an action by volunteer firemen for claimed negligent starting of a fire.) Present — ■ Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 785, 18 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lofgren-v-protane-corp-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack