From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feder v. Friedman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1911
71 Misc. 134 (N.Y. App. Term 1911)

Opinion

March, 1911.

Alderman Alderman, for appellant.

Joseph Bernstein, for respondents.


The plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal injuries. While walking in front of No. 654 Broadway, New York city, the plaintiff was struck on the head by a sign belonging to the defendants which fell from the fifth floor of that building. These facts, in addition to the injuries which the plaintiff sustained, were sufficiently proved by the plaintiff at the trial. At the close of the case, the court dismissed the complaint. From the judgment entered upon that dismissal the plaintiff appeals to this court.

Upon the facts proved, the case called for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and it was error to dismiss the complaint. Morris v. Strobel Wilkin Co., 81 Hun, 1; McNulty v. Ludwig Co., 125 A.D. 291; Reynolds v. Van Beuren, 10 Misc. 703; 51 A.D. 632; 155 N.Y. 120. Whether or not the defendants had been guilty of negligence was, under the evidence, a question of fact for the jury to determine.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

PAGE and BIJUR, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Feder v. Friedman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1911
71 Misc. 134 (N.Y. App. Term 1911)
Case details for

Feder v. Friedman

Case Details

Full title:HYMAN FEDER, an Infant, by RACHEL FEDER, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Mar 1, 1911

Citations

71 Misc. 134 (N.Y. App. Term 1911)
128 N.Y.S. 6

Citing Cases

Sottile v. Rednick

It is my opinion that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, especially since no explanation was offered…

Sottile v. Rednick

It is my opinion that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, especially since no explanation was offered…