From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CLARKE v. AU

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1933
240 App. Div. 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Opinion

December, 1933.


Judgment affirmed, with costs. The jury may properly have found that appellant had given its salesman full and complete control of its car, thus making him "the master of the ship" ( Grant v. Knepper, 245 N.Y. 158), even to the extent of permitting a third person to use the car. The car was thus used with the implied permission of appellant, and for the negligent acts of the third person appellant is responsible. (Vehicle Traffic Law, § 59; Bennett v. Nazzaro, 144 Misc. 450; affd., 237 App. Div. 866. ) Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty and Davis, JJ., concur; Young and Tompkins, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and for a dismissal of the complaint on the ground that at the time of the accident the automobile was not being used with the permission, express or implied, of the appellant owner. ( Grant v. Knepper, supra; Arcara v. Moresse, 258 N.Y. 211.)


Summaries of

CLARKE v. AU

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1933
240 App. Div. 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
Case details for

CLARKE v. AU

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE MARCELLUS CLARKE, Respondent, v. MASON AU and MAGENHEIMER…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1933

Citations

240 App. Div. 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Yukoweic

The issues of negligence and contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury as questions of…

Bernard v. Mumuni

xtended to Saday Allhassan. The record contains sufficient evidence to support such a finding. In the event…