From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hansen v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1947
271 App. Div. 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

Summary

In Hansen v. New York City Housing Authority, 271 App. Div. 986, 68 N.Y.S.2d 71 (2 d Dept. 1947), a child was struck by a swing on a playground provided by defendant.

Summary of this case from Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of Newark

Opinion

February 24, 1947.


The infant plaintiff was struck in the eye by the corner of a swing, in a playground owned and operated by appellant, as she was approaching the adjoining swing in order to ride thereon. Two theories of negligence were submitted to the jury: (1) Failure to exercise ordinary care in the supervision and maintenance of the playground; and (2) improper construction of the swing area, in that a guard fence in front of the swings was too close to the swings. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Under the law of the case, charged by the court without exception, appellant was under a duty of exercising ordinary care in the maintenance, construction and supervision of the playground. Assuming, without deciding, that appellant failed to furnish adequate supervision over the activities in the playground, there is no evidence that such violation of appellant's duty had any causal relation to the accident ( Laub v. City of New York, 271 App. Div. 797; Dougherty v. City of New York, 267 App. Div. 828, affd. 295 N.Y. 786; Peterson v. City of New York, 267 N.Y. 204); and it was, therefore, error to submit that question to the jury. The proof presented an issue of fact as to the construction of the swing area, although evidence as to the distances and measurements involved was meagre; and that specification of negligence was properly submitted. Since one of the theories was erroneously submitted to the jury, and there was merely a general verdict, the judgment must be reversed as we have no way of determining upon which theory the case was decided. ( Tumbarello v. City of New York, 269 App. Div. 847.) Lewis, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hansen v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1947
271 App. Div. 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

In Hansen v. New York City Housing Authority, 271 App. Div. 986, 68 N.Y.S.2d 71 (2 d Dept. 1947), a child was struck by a swing on a playground provided by defendant.

Summary of this case from Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of Newark

In Hansen, the court concluded that invoices of asbestos materials to various buildings did not support an inference that plaintiff was exposed because the plaintiff had not established when he worked at those buildings or that he would have been exposed if he had been working there when the materials were used. And in Booth, the court concluded that an invoice of asbestos tape to a job site in 1967 could not support an inference that the plaintiff was exposed to that product when he worked there in 1969.

Summary of this case from Allen v. Asbestos Corp.
Case details for

Hansen v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:ELEANOR HANSEN, an Infant, by VIGGO HANSEN, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1947

Citations

271 App. Div. 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

Citing Cases

Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of Newark

The court found defendant's failure in the circumstances constituted an invitation to ball games, an activity…

O'Connor v. 595 Realty Assoc

And, since it is impossible on this record to determine which act of negligence served as a basis for the…