Stephen v. Woodruff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stephen v. Woodruff

45 N.Y.S. 712, 18 A.D. 625

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

DecidedMay 21, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 N.Y.S. 712 (Stephen v. Woodruff) 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

Stephen v. Woodruff, 45 N.Y.S. 712, 18 A.D. 625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

BRADLEY, J.

The plaintiff, by his complaint, charges that by reason of the leaky and impaired condition of the roof of the house in which the plaintiff, with his infant daughter, Katherine, resided, wrongfully permitted by the defendants’ testator, the rain came, through onto the child while she was asleep in her bed, causing her illness, and resulting in permanent injury to .her eyes, partially depriving her of the use of them; and that, as the consequence of [713]*713such illness and injury, the plaintiff has been deprived of the work, labor, and services of such infant, and of the sums which she might otherwise have earned, and will be so deprived of them during her minority. The ground of the defendants’ demurrer is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. As the facts are alleged in the complaint, the consequences may be deemed to have been the proximate result of the negligence of the defendants’ testator. Scott v. Brown, 24 Hun, 620. It.is, however, urged and argued at length by the learned counsel for the defendants that the alleged cause of action did not survive the death of the defendants’ testator. We are unable in this respect to distinguish this case, in principle, from that of Cregin v. Railroad Co., 75 N. Y. 192.

Upon the authority of that case, the judgment must be affirmed. All concur.

Defendants may have leave to appeal to the court of appeals, if they so elect.

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

BRADLEY, J.

The plaintiff, by his complaint, charges that by reason of the leaky and impaired condition of the roof of the house in which the plaintiff, with his infant daughter, Katherine, resided, wrongfully permitted by the defendants’ testator, the rain came, through onto the child while she was asleep in her bed, causing her illness, and resulting in permanent injury to .her eyes, partially depriving her of the use of them; and that, as the consequence of [713]*713such illness and injury, the plaintiff has been deprived of the work, labor, and services of such infant, and of the sums which she might otherwise have earned, and will be so deprived of them during her minority. The ground of the defendants’ demurrer is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. As the facts are alleged in the complaint, the consequences may be deemed to have been the proximate result of the negligence of the defendants’ testator. Scott v. Brown, 24 Hun, 620. It.is, however, urged and argued at length by the learned counsel for the defendants that the alleged cause of action did not survive the death of the defendants’ testator. We are unable in this respect to distinguish this case, in principle, from that of Cregin v. Railroad Co., 75 N. Y. 192.

Upon the authority of that case, the judgment must be affirmed. All concur.

Defendants may have leave to appeal to the court of appeals, if they so elect.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.Y.S. 712, 18 A.D. 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-v-woodruff-nyappdiv-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack