Tooley v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tooley v. State

235 A.D. 656

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1932·No. Claim No. 21709·Published

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. We think the question of contributory negligence was one of fact because the deceased was acting under the direction of his employer and might, therefore, rely upon the latter’s watchfulness. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Edgeomb, J., who dissent and vote for reversal on the law and facts and for dismissal of the claim on the ground that the refusal to find defendant’s requests Nos. 9 and 10 was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. Present ■— Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgeomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. We think the question of contributory negligence was one of fact because the deceased was acting under the direction of his employer and might, therefore, rely upon the latter’s watchfulness. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Edgeomb, J., who dissent and vote for reversal on the law and facts and for dismissal of the claim on the ground that the refusal to find defendant’s requests Nos. 9 and 10 was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. Present ■— Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgeomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Tooley v. State, 235 A.D. 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

235 A.D. 656 (Tooley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.