From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Gonzalez

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Apr 11, 1957
9 Misc. 2d 190 (N.Y. App. Term 1957)

Opinion

April 11, 1957

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of The Bronx, CHARLES A. LORETO, J.

Louis George Rudd for appellants.

Joseph M. Nakrin for respondent.


On the basis of the record the jury was entitled to find that the defendant was negligent in backing his vehicle into a parking space and running his wheel over a bottle in the roadway, causing broken glass to fly in plaintiff's direction and to strike her, with resultant injuries to her. Whether or not defendant in the exercise of reasonable care should have seen the bottle or foreseen that in striking it glass might be thrown with violence against the plaintiff here was a question of fact for the jury in view of all of the circumstances. It was error therefore for the court below to say as a matter of law that on the evidence in this case danger was not foreseeable by a prudent person ( Payne v. City of New York, 277 N.Y. 393).

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $30 costs, motion denied and verdict for plaintiffs reinstated.

HOFSTADTER, STEUER and HECHT, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Miller v. Gonzalez

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Apr 11, 1957
9 Misc. 2d 190 (N.Y. App. Term 1957)
Case details for

Miller v. Gonzalez

Case Details

Full title:FANNIE MILLER et al., Appellants, v. ALBERTO GONZALEZ, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Apr 11, 1957

Citations

9 Misc. 2d 190 (N.Y. App. Term 1957)
163 N.Y.S.2d 687

Citing Cases

Jeansonne v. Louisiana Ready Mix Co.

The question before this court on appeal is whether or not the actions of Milton Davis constituted actionable…

De Sessa v. City of White Plains

For Cannaughtan to be held liable it is not necessary that the plaintiff must have been injured as a result…