From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Power v. Arnold Engineering Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 1911
142 App. Div. 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

Opinion

January 6, 1911.

Arthur I. Strang, for the appellant.

James S. Lehmaier, for the respondent.


The plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries sustained by him by reason of the negligence of the defendant's agent and servant in the conduct of an automobile which came into collision with a phaeton in which the plaintiff was riding along a public highway in the borough of Brooklyn on July 25, 1907.

Upon the trial it developed that the defendant was engaged in business at the time of the occurrence in question in surveying land at Ossining and Briarcliff in this State, and that the automobile which collided with plaintiff's phaeton was used by defendant in carrying surveyors and helpers to and from their employment on defendant's business in these two localities; that defendant had no business of any kind on Long Island at that time, and that the trip which was then being taken by the occupants of such automobile was a pleasure trip, and was not one which had any connection whatever with the business of the defendant corporation. It was proven that the automobile in question was driven by one Bing, the secretary and treasurer of the defendant corporation, and that accompanying him was the niece of its president, while the president himself, with his wife and a clergyman, occupied the second car. Both parties were on their way to Rockaway Beach or Far Rockaway. This was established not only by the testimony of defendant's president but by that of his wife and of his guest.

The case as submitted to the jury is devoid of any suggestion contradicting defendant's witnesses; nor is it even indicated upon what the contention may be based that the automobile at the time of the accident was being used about the business of the defendant. The verdict in favor of plaintiff was against the weight of evidence and the judgment and order must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

INGRAHAM, P.J., CLARKE, SCOTT and MILLER, JJ., concurred.

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


Summaries of

Power v. Arnold Engineering Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 1911
142 App. Div. 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)
Case details for

Power v. Arnold Engineering Co.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT POWER, Respondent, v . THE ARNOLD ENGINEERING COMPANY, Appellant…

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

Date published: Jan 6, 1911

Citations

142 App. Div. 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)
126 N.Y.S. 839

Citing Cases

Morehouse v. Morehouse Brothers Co.

The authorities abundantly support this ruling. O'Rourke v. A-G Co., Inc., 232 Mass. 129, 131, 122 N.E. 193;…

Martinelli v. Bond

This rule is so well established that there can hardly be said to be conflict of authority thereon. The…