Warsitz v. Frank Lenahan & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warsitz v. Frank Lenahan & Sons, Inc.

241 A.D. 905

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1934·Published

Opinion

Order reversed on the facts, with costs, and verdict reinstated, with costs. Memorandum: The record does not require the conclusion that the mishap occurred so late in the day or that the weather conditions or any [906]*906of the circumstances attending the transaction involved were such that the jury was obligated to find negligence in the employees of defendant which was at least a concurring proximate cause of the mishap. There was reasonable justification for a finding that careless management of his automobile by plaintiff Warsitz alone — or such carelessness on the part of Warsitz and plaintiff Sigle concurrently — was the sole cause of appellant’s being injured. All concur.

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

Order reversed on the facts, with costs, and verdict reinstated, with costs. Memorandum: The record does not require the conclusion that the mishap occurred so late in the day or that the weather conditions or any [906]*906of the circumstances attending the transaction involved were such that the jury was obligated to find negligence in the employees of defendant which was at least a concurring proximate cause of the mishap. There was reasonable justification for a finding that careless management of his automobile by plaintiff Warsitz alone — or such carelessness on the part of Warsitz and plaintiff Sigle concurrently — was the sole cause of appellant’s being injured. All concur.

Warsitz v. Frank Lenahan & Sons, Inc., 241 A.D. 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

241 A.D. 905 (Warsitz v. Frank Lenahan & Sons, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.