Miller v. Gonzalez

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Gonzalez

9 Misc. 2d 190, 163 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3181

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 11, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 Misc. 2d 190 (Miller v. Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Gonzalez, 9 Misc. 2d 190, 163 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the basis of the record the jury was entitled to find that the defendant was negligent in backing his vehicle into a parking space and running his wheel over a bottle in the [191]*191roadway, causing broken glass to fly in plaintiff’s direction and to strike her, with resultant injuries to her. Whether or not ¡defendant in the exercise of reasonable care should have seen the bottle or foreseen that in striking it glass might be thrown with violence against the plaintiff here was a question of fact for the jury in view of all of the circumstances. It was error therefore for the court below to say as a matter of law that on the evidence in this case danger was not foreseeable by a prudent person (Payne v. City of New York, 277 N. Y. 393).

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $30 costs, ¡motion denied and verdict for plaintiffs reinstated.

Hofstadteb, Steueb and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

On the basis of the record the jury was entitled to find that the defendant was negligent in backing his vehicle into a parking space and running his wheel over a bottle in the [191]*191roadway, causing broken glass to fly in plaintiff’s direction and to strike her, with resultant injuries to her. Whether or not ¡defendant in the exercise of reasonable care should have seen the bottle or foreseen that in striking it glass might be thrown with violence against the plaintiff here was a question of fact for the jury in view of all of the circumstances. It was error therefore for the court below to say as a matter of law that on the evidence in this case danger was not foreseeable by a prudent person (Payne v. City of New York, 277 N. Y. 393).

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $30 costs, ¡motion denied and verdict for plaintiffs reinstated.

Hofstadteb, Steueb and Hecht, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Misc. 2d 190, 163 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-gonzalez-nyappterm-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack