From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richards v. Texas Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 1, 1935
245 App. Div. 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

Opinion

June, 1935.


The defendant purchased gasoline equipment which had been used for more than a year, consisting of hose and pumps, and on the day of the purchase leased it to the plaintiff's employer without making any inspection or examination of the equipment and especially the hose. Nineteen days later, while the plaintiff was filling a car at the street curb, the hose burst, causing the plaintiff to become covered with gasoline, which became ignited from flares maintained by the city in the public street adjacent. The evidence showed that an inspection of the hose would have discovered the defect which caused the accident. Judgments and orders affirmed, with costs in one action. Hill, P.J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Richards v. Texas Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 1, 1935
245 App. Div. 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)
Case details for

Richards v. Texas Company

Case Details

Full title:DONALD G. RICHARDS, Respondent, v. THE TEXAS COMPANY, Appellant, and EDWIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 1, 1935

Citations

245 App. Div. 797 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

Citing Cases

La Rocca v. Farrington

th — it was error for the trial court to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and dismiss his…

Whitehead v. Schrick

This he could have done through inspection. Richards v. Texas Co., 245 App.Div. 797, 280 N.Y.S. 950. The jury…