Miller v. Bahmmuller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Bahmmuller

124 A.D. 558, 108 N.Y.S. 924, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2149

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 A.D. 558 (Miller v. Bahmmuller) 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

Miller v. Bahmmuller, 124 A.D. 558, 108 N.Y.S. 924, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, J.:

The defendants are copartners, and the negligence charged was the maintenance by the defendants of an open unguarded cellar-way on their premises near the sidewalk. The plaintiff, a little-boy eight years of age, was sitting on the step by the side of the cellarway when one of the defendants kicked him and caused him to fall into the cellar way, sustaining injuries for which he has recovered. The plaintiff’s theory is that the open cellarway was one of the proximate causes of the injuries; that that and the assault were concurrent causes. We do not think sol ' The plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, is for assault against the person who committed the assault. -

The judgment and order should be reversed and a hew trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Jehks, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hooker, J., dissented.

Judgment and order of the County Court of Kings county reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Miller, J.:

The defendants are copartners, and the negligence charged was the maintenance by the defendants of an open unguarded cellar-way on their premises near the sidewalk. The plaintiff, a little-boy eight years of age, was sitting on the step by the side of the cellarway when one of the defendants kicked him and caused him to fall into the cellar way, sustaining injuries for which he has recovered. The plaintiff’s theory is that the open cellarway was one of the proximate causes of the injuries; that that and the assault were concurrent causes. We do not think sol ' The plaintiff’s cause of action, if any, is for assault against the person who committed the assault. -

The judgment and order should be reversed and a hew trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Jehks, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hooker, J., dissented.

Judgment and order of the County Court of Kings county reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D. 558, 108 N.Y.S. 924, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-bahmmuller-nyappdiv-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack