From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Machiea v. Hayden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 1, 1915
171 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)

Opinion

November, 1915.


The motion for reargument should be denied. We think the rule of Morman v. Rochester Machine Screw Co. ( 53 App. Div. 497) and Sackheim v. Pigueron ( 215 N.Y. 62), on which plaintiff relies, does not apply. In each it was held to be a question of fact as to whether there was not an implied invitation to enter the elevator, excusing the degree of care otherwise necessary to ascertain whether the elevator was there. In the present case there was no such invitation, and plaintiff knew that no door to the elevator well was operating automatically and that when he left the elevator a moment before the accident he had not closed any door. Motion for reargument denied. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied.


Summaries of

Machiea v. Hayden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 1, 1915
171 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)
Case details for

Machiea v. Hayden

Case Details

Full title:HENRY MACHIEA, Plaintiff, v . CHARLES A. HAYDEN, Defendant

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1915

Citations

171 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)