Vaglio v. Kahn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vaglio v. Kahn

253 A.D. 824, 1 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8777

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 824 (Vaglio v. Kahn) 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

Vaglio v. Kahn, 253 A.D. 824, 1 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The infant plaintiff, aged eight years, was crossing the street in front of his home when the defendant ran him down with her automobile in the middle of the street, seriously injuring him. She did not see him until she struck him, and gave no warning. It was dark at the time, and only her cowl lights, if any, were on. There was nonsuit and a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence. Judgment for defendant reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The infant appellant made a prima facie case of negligence, aud the question of his contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury. (Hammer v. Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc., 215 App. Div. 308; 42 C. J. p. 1049 et seq., and cases cited; 5 Am. Jur. p. 608.) Hagarty, Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

The infant plaintiff, aged eight years, was crossing the street in front of his home when the defendant ran him down with her automobile in the middle of the street, seriously injuring him. She did not see him until she struck him, and gave no warning. It was dark at the time, and only her cowl lights, if any, were on. There was nonsuit and a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence. Judgment for defendant reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The infant appellant made a prima facie case of negligence, aud the question of his contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury. (Hammer v. Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc., 215 App. Div. 308; 42 C. J. p. 1049 et seq., and cases cited; 5 Am. Jur. p. 608.) Hagarty, Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 824, 1 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaglio-v-kahn-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack