Wakeman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

247 A.D. 462

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is in this case no showing that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous and unsafe condition of the washroom floor which it is claimed was the cause of plaintiff’s fall and resultant injuries; nor is there any proof that the alleged dangerous condition was created by defendants’ own servants. In the circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish any [463]*463cause of action against defendants. (Boettcher v. Dowling, 243 App. Div. 397; affd., 270 N. Y. 557.)

The judgment should accordingly be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, Glennon, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Glennon and Dore, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

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

Wakeman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 247 A.D. 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

247 A.D. 462 (Wakeman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boettcher v. Dowling
200 N.E. 316 (New York Court of Appeals, 1936)
Boettcher v. Dowling
243 A.D. 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)