History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tangemann v. City of New York
165 A.D. 896
| N.Y. App. Div. | 1914
|
Check Treatment
Per Curiam:

We think there was a question for the jury as to the negligence of the defendant and as to the freedom of the plaintiff from contributory negligence, and that, therefore, it was error to dismiss the complaint. It follows that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; McLaughlin and Dowling, JJ., dissented. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. Order to be settled on notice.

Case Details

Case Name: Tangemann v. City of New York
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Nov 15, 1914
Citation: 165 A.D. 896
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.