From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Darmstadt v. Fischler

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Dec 18, 1947
191 Misc. 1 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)

Opinion

December 18, 1947.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, MORRIS, J.

Paul Wolfe and I. Stanley Stein for appellant.

David A. Krakoff for respondent.


Plaintiff swore the motor was very hot. He knew that when he ordered the gasoline put into his tank above the motor. He watched closely the meter on the defendant's pump, and knew the capacity of the tank. Nevertheless with this knowledge and knowledge that more than he had asked had been pumped in and was continuing to be pumped, he said nothing to the defendant's servant. According to plaintiff, gallonage equal to the capacity of the tank had been pumped before he got out of the car, nevertheless he looked silently on while the gasoline was still entering the tank. He was guilty of contributory negligence. The following cases cited by him held the defendants there negligent but also held that conduct akin to his amounted to contributory negligence. Strand v. Everett ( 84 Cal.App. 358) and Standard Oil Co. v. Evans ( 154 Miss. 475).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs to defendant and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

MACCRATE, STEINBRINK and FENNELLY, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Darmstadt v. Fischler

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Dec 18, 1947
191 Misc. 1 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)
Case details for

Darmstadt v. Fischler

Case Details

Full title:FRANCIS DARMSTADT, Respondent, v. ALFRED FISCHLER, Doing Business under…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Dec 18, 1947

Citations

191 Misc. 1 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)
79 N.Y.S.2d 288