Mack v. Dock Contractor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mack v. Dock Contractor Co.

171 A.D. 931, 155 N.Y.S. 1002

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 171 A.D. 931 (Mack v. Dock Contractor Co.) 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

Mack v. Dock Contractor Co., 171 A.D. 931, 155 N.Y.S. 1002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff’s contention was that defendant had been negligent in placing and maintaining a large pipe in the roadway, close up against the curbstone. Much relevant testimony was excluded which was offered to show the actual physical condition of the street when plaintiff fell, and also that other persons had previously tripped over the same pipe. This constituted reversible error. But even after the exclusion of this testimony enough remained in the case to require the submission to the jury of the question of defendant’s negligence. The judgment should be reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Present— Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ. Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff’s contention was that defendant had been negligent in placing and maintaining a large pipe in the roadway, close up against the curbstone. Much relevant testimony was excluded which was offered to show the actual physical condition of the street when plaintiff fell, and also that other persons had previously tripped over the same pipe. This constituted reversible error. But even after the exclusion of this testimony enough remained in the case to require the submission to the jury of the question of defendant’s negligence. The judgment should be reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Present— Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ. Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D. 931, 155 N.Y.S. 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-dock-contractor-co-nyappdiv-1915.