From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Storms v. City of Fulton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 7, 1942
263 App. Div. 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Opinion

January 7, 1942.

Present — Crosby, P.J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.


Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: Upon our examination of the record, we conclude that the finding of negligence is against the weight of evidence. Aside from the testimony of plaintiff's witness that, in his opinion, more than the one playground attendant assigned to supervise this playground was required for adequate supervision thereof, it is doubtful whether plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case ( Fritz v. City of Buffalo, 277 N.Y. 710; Curcio v. City of New York, 275 id. 20; Peterson v. City of New York, 267 id. 204), and the opinion evidence was incompetent. ( Lowery v. Syracuse University, 258 App. Div. 844. ) Furthermore, the court's charge to the jury failed adequately to define the issues. Although no objections were made to either the incompetent evidence or to the charge as made and no requests to charge were made by defendant's counsel, we think that, under the circumstances, the interests of justice will be best served by granting a new trial. All concur, Cunningham and Harris, JJ., in result only. (The judgment is for plaintiff in a negligence action.)


Summaries of

Storms v. City of Fulton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 7, 1942
263 App. Div. 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)
Case details for

Storms v. City of Fulton

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL STORMS, by His Guardian ad Litem, GARNETT STORMS, Respondent, v…

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

Date published: Jan 7, 1942

Citations

263 App. Div. 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Citing Cases

Mrula v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

The jury may well have found that the insured did not actually anticipate or invite the dire result which…

Molnar v. Slattery Contr. Co.

( Fox v. Hindus, 268 App. Div. 916; cf. Counihan v. Werbelovsky's Sons, 5 A.D.2d 80.) Nor does the fact that…