Stauch v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stauch v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia

127 A.D. 350, 111 N.Y.S. 540, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1980

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

DecidedJune 29, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D. 350 (Stauch v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia) 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

Stauch v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia, 127 A.D. 350, 111 N.Y.S. 540, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The action was to recover a loss on a policy of fire insurance. The policy states that the insured premises were occupied as “ a dance-hall, hotel and other purposes not more hazardous ”. It contained the clause common to all of our policies in this state that it should be void if the hazard were increased “ by any means, within the control of the insured ”. ' There was evidence that the insured sometimes allowed moving pictures to be shown in the place, i. <?., pictures .thrown on a screen by lights, etc. The defendant called a witness as an expert to answer the bald question whether the production of such pictures was not an increased hazard. The sustaining of the objection thereto was not error. It was not a case permitting of such evidence. It was for the defendant to prove the facts, i. e., how such pictures were produced, what lights were used, and how,- and so on; and from such evidence it was for the jury to decide whether there was any increased hazard. A dance-hall has many lights. Experts cannot be permitted to dogmatically decide-things which depend on facts from which ordinary men are competent to draw conclusions.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The action was to recover a loss on a policy of fire insurance. The policy states that the insured premises were occupied as “ a dance-hall, hotel and other purposes not more hazardous ”. It contained the clause common to all of our policies in this state that it should be void if the hazard were increased “ by any means, within the control of the insured ”. ' There was evidence that the insured sometimes allowed moving pictures to be shown in the place, i. <?., pictures .thrown on a screen by lights, etc. The defendant called a witness as an expert to answer the bald question whether the production of such pictures was not an increased hazard. The sustaining of the objection thereto was not error. It was not a case permitting of such evidence. It was for the defendant to prove the facts, i. e., how such pictures were produced, what lights were used, and how,- and so on; and from such evidence it was for the jury to decide whether there was any increased hazard. A dance-hall has many lights. Experts cannot be permitted to dogmatically decide-things which depend on facts from which ordinary men are competent to draw conclusions.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D. 350, 111 N.Y.S. 540, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stauch-v-fire-assn-of-philadelphia-nyappdiv-1908.