Sloven v. Chesebro Whitman Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sloven v. Chesebro Whitman Co.

243 A.D. 742

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 742 (Sloven v. Chesebro Whitman 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

Sloven v. Chesebro Whitman Co., 243 A.D. 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

The infant plaintiff, while crossing the street, was. struck down and seriously injured when a truck suddenly backed without warning. The right femur was broken, requiring three months of treatment in the hospital and resulting in permanent injuries, including a shortening of the leg and an inversion of the right foot. There was a verdict in his favor, and also in favor of his father for the expense incurred. This appeal raises no question of negligence or contributory negligence, but only that the bill of particulars did not specifically mention the inversion of the right foot as a result of the injury; and that the evidence admitted in that respect was incompetent. Judgment and order denying new trial unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Tompkins, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

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

The infant plaintiff, while crossing the street, was. struck down and seriously injured when a truck suddenly backed without warning. The right femur was broken, requiring three months of treatment in the hospital and resulting in permanent injuries, including a shortening of the leg and an inversion of the right foot. There was a verdict in his favor, and also in favor of his father for the expense incurred. This appeal raises no question of negligence or contributory negligence, but only that the bill of particulars did not specifically mention the inversion of the right foot as a result of the injury; and that the evidence admitted in that respect was incompetent. Judgment and order denying new trial unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Tompkins, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloven-v-chesebro-whitman-co-nyappdiv-1935.