Majority
The complaint, as limited by the bill of particulars accused defendant of one kind of negligence only, i. e., faulty construction. There was no real or substantial evidence of negligent maintenance of the bench. The trial court’s charge to the jury which limited the basis for recovery, and to which no exception was taken, was therefore correct. In this situation, a verdict for plaintiff against the carrier necessarily imported a finding of negli
The judgment of the Appellate Division so far as appealed from, should be reversed and that of the trial court, affirmed, with ■ costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.
Judgment accordingly.
Cases cited
- John Wanamaker, New York, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co. 228 N. Y. 192 p. 409
- B. A. & G. N. Williams v. New York & Queens Electric Light & Power Co. 222 N. Y. 663 p. 409
- Rumetsch v. John Wanamaker, New York Inc. 216 N. Y. 379 p. 409
- Village of Port Jervis v. First National Bank 96 N. Y. 550 p. 409
- Carleton v. Lombard, Ayres & Co. 149 N. Y. 137 p. 409
- Gray v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad 175 N. Y. 448 p. 409
- Stahl v. Niagara De Luxe Cab Co. 135 Misc. 859 p. 409
- Hull v. Littauer 162 N. Y. 569 p. 409
- St. Andrassy v. Mooney 262 N. Y. 368 p. 409