Machiea v. Hayden

171 A.D. 964, 157 N.Y.S. 233
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1915·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per CuPviAM:

The motion for reargument should be denied. We think the rule of Morman v. Rochester Machine Screw Co. (53 App. Div. 497) and Sackheim v. Pigueron (215 N. Y. 62), on which plaintiff relies, does not apply. In each it was held to be a question of fact as to whether there was not an implied invitation to enter the elevator, excusing the degree of care otherwise necessary to ascertain whether the elevator was there. In the present ease there was no such invitation, and plaintiff knew that no door to the elevator well was operating automatically and that when he left the elevator a moment before the accident he had not closed any door. Motion for reargument denied. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied.

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

Machiea v. Hayden, 171 A.D. 964, 157 N.Y.S. 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

171 A.D. 964 (Machiea v. Hayden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Unrein v. Oklahoma Hide Co.
244 S.W. 924 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922)