Rothbard v. Joseph P. Day, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rothbard v. Joseph P. Day, Inc.

258 A.D. 1063, 17 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8899

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 1063 (Rothbard v. Joseph P. Day, Inc.) 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

Rothbard v. Joseph P. Day, Inc., 258 A.D. 1063, 17 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought by the infant-plaintiffs to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a swimming pool operated by defendant, and by their mothers for loss of services and medical expenses, judgment dismissing the complaints at the close of plaintiffs’ ease affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Close, J., concur for affirmance of judgment dismissing the complaint as to plaintiffs Harold Rothbard and Harriet Rothbard; but dissent as to plaintiffs Leroy Schwartz and Anna Schwartz, and as to them vote to reverse the judgment and grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: 150 people were using the swimming pool which had four or five diving boards. There was only one guard, He was seated fifty-five feet away from the diving board used by the infant plaintiffs. A jury might have found that there was inadequate supervision. Plaintiffs Schwartz made out a cause of action. (Allon v. Park Central Hotel Co., Inc., 248 App. Div. 604; affd., 272 N. Y. 631.)

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

In an action brought by the infant-plaintiffs to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a swimming pool operated by defendant, and by their mothers for loss of services and medical expenses, judgment dismissing the complaints at the close of plaintiffs’ ease affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Hagarty, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Close, J., concur for affirmance of judgment dismissing the complaint as to plaintiffs Harold Rothbard and Harriet Rothbard; but dissent as to plaintiffs Leroy Schwartz and Anna Schwartz, and as to them vote to reverse the judgment and grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: 150 people were using the swimming pool which had four or five diving boards. There was only one guard, He was seated fifty-five feet away from the diving board used by the infant plaintiffs. A jury might have found that there was inadequate supervision. Plaintiffs Schwartz made out a cause of action. (Allon v. Park Central Hotel Co., Inc., 248 App. Div. 604; affd., 272 N. Y. 631.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 1063, 17 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothbard-v-joseph-p-day-inc-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack