Williams v. James McGinness Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. James McGinness Co.

176 A.D. 936

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D. 936 (Williams v. James McGinness Co.) 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

Williams v. James McGinness Co., 176 A.D. 936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the charge to the jury to the effect that the fact that the box fell, if plaintiff’s own act did not contribute to its fall, justified a verdict for the plaintiff. We think this was not a case for the rule of res ipsa loquitur, since by itself the falling box did not speak of or identify defendant as the wrongdoer. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the charge to the jury to the effect that the fact that the box fell, if plaintiff’s own act did not contribute to its fall, justified a verdict for the plaintiff. We think this was not a case for the rule of res ipsa loquitur, since by itself the falling box did not speak of or identify defendant as the wrongdoer. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D. 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-james-mcginness-co-nyappdiv-1917.