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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 1940·Published

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.)

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

258 A.D. 1063 (Rothbard v. Joseph P. Day, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related