Hyperlawhypertext legal database Grotzky v. Rosary Flower Co. 113 N.Y.S. 117

← Cases

Grotzky v. Rosary Flower Co.

113 N.Y.S. 117 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1908-11-30 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — MacLEAN, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 117
(61 Misc. Rep. 99.)
GROTZKY v. ROSARY FLOWER CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 30, 1908.)

Headnote

Municipal Cobpobations (§ 706[1] ) — Streets—Child Run Over—Negligence and Contributory Negligence—Jury Questions.
Under the evidence in an action for injury to a child run over in a street by defendant’s delivery wagon, questions of negligence and contributory negligence held for the jury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1518; Dec. Dig. § 706.*]
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
Personal injury action by Abraham Grotzky, by Samuel Grotzky, guardian ad litem, against the Rosary Flower Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ.
Leon Dashew, for appellant.
C. H. & J. A. Young, for respondent.

The action is for personal injuries. The complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals. The facts are substantially as follows: At 7:30 p. m. on November 31, 1907, near 73 Allen street, the plaintiff, an infant of 3 years ancj 10 months, was playing ball with another child on the sidewalk. The ball rolled into the street, and

Dissent

p. 118
plaintiff went to get it. He was returning, and had almost reached the sidewalk when defendant’s wagon ran over him and caused the injuries complained of. When the horse was about one house, or over 25 feet, away from the spot where the child stood, some one called to defendant’s driver to stop. He failed to pay any attention to this warning, and, although there was sufficient light to enable him to see the child, and notwithstanding he had sufficient time to stop his horse and avoid the accident, he continued his course, and ran over the child. The questions of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence were for the jury, and it was error to dismiss the complaint. See Dehmann v. Beck, 61 App. Div. 505 , 70 N. Y. Supp. 29 ; Kennedy v. Hills Bros. Co., 54 App. Div. 29 , 66 N. Y. Supp. 280 .

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

(dissenting). Granting the propriety of the submission to the jury of the question of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, there seems to be no evidence of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle of the defendant. That the driver was the distance of one house from the spot where the child of between three and four years of age stood in the street when he was called to stop, and that the street was lighted on that November evening 7:30 of the 21st, may hardly without more be said to be sufficient to go to the jury on the question of the driver’s negligence. The speed at which he was driving or the weight of the vehicle was not shown, or that he heard or could have heard the call to stop, and the accident was not at a crosswalk where he was bound to be vigilant. The dismissal for lack of evidence would therefore seem to have been proper.

Cases cited