From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vogel v. Laiso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 29, 1937
252 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Summary

In Vogel v. Laiso, 252 A.D. 894, 300 N.Y.S. 180, the New York court said: "The law imposes no duty on the driver to anticipate the unusual happening."

Summary of this case from A a Cab Operating Co. v. Drake

Opinion

November 29, 1937.


In a negligence action, judgment of the County Court of Rockland county in favor of the plaintiff reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Plaintiff was a passenger in the taxicab owned by the defendant. In alighting, she put her hand on the metal upright post between the front and the rear doors. While she was in that position, another passenger, who had alighted before her, slammed the door, injuring plaintiff's fingers that were around the upright post. The law imposed no duty on the driver to anticipate the unusual happening. Hagarty, Davis, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vogel v. Laiso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 29, 1937
252 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

In Vogel v. Laiso, 252 A.D. 894, 300 N.Y.S. 180, the New York court said: "The law imposes no duty on the driver to anticipate the unusual happening."

Summary of this case from A a Cab Operating Co. v. Drake
Case details for

Vogel v. Laiso

Case Details

Full title:VICTORIA VOGEL, Respondent, v. FRANK LAISO, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 29, 1937

Citations

252 App. Div. 894 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Citing Cases

Kelly v. Otis

A passenger shut the passenger door on plaintiff's right hand and wrist. A private carrier owes a duty to…

Harvey v. Auto Interurban Co.

In this connection, appellants have cited a number of cases holding generally that the driver of a carrier is…