Story v. Howes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Story v. Howes

41 A.D.2d 925, 344 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395

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

DecidedMay 22, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 925 (Story v. Howes) 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

Story v. Howes, 41 A.D.2d 925, 344 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County entered on December 26, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law, and vacated, and a new trial directed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. The plaintiff, aged 11 at the time, sustained injuries as he rode his bicycle north on Broadway in Manhattan, when the rear wheel of his bicycle was struck by the defendant’s ear coming from the intersection at 120th Street and Broadway. The jury having found for the defendant, the only question is as to certain aspects of the charge. While there may have been some errors, not likely to recur, that portion of the charge, that allowed the jury to consider the question of assumption of risk, was erroneous. The mere riding of a bicycle does not mean the assumption of risk by the rider that he may be hit by a car. (Cf. Bloom v. Dalu Corp., 269 App. Div. 192.) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County entered on December 26, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law, and vacated, and a new trial directed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to abide the event. The plaintiff, aged 11 at the time, sustained injuries as he rode his bicycle north on Broadway in Manhattan, when the rear wheel of his bicycle was struck by the defendant’s ear coming from the intersection at 120th Street and Broadway. The jury having found for the defendant, the only question is as to certain aspects of the charge. While there may have been some errors, not likely to recur, that portion of the charge, that allowed the jury to consider the question of assumption of risk, was erroneous. The mere riding of a bicycle does not mean the assumption of risk by the rider that he may be hit by a car. (Cf. Bloom v. Dalu Corp., 269 App. Div. 192.) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lane, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 925, 344 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/story-v-howes-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack