From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luce v. Hartman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 14, 1959
6 N.Y.2d 786 (N.Y. 1959)

Opinion

Argued January 16, 1959

Decided May 14, 1959

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, JOSEPH A. NEVINS, J.

David M. Franz for appellant.

Joseph Brownstein for respondent.


Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed and that of Trial Term reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, upon the ground that facts were submitted as to negligence and proximate cause justifying submission of the case to the jury. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge CONWAY and Judges DESMOND, FULD and FROESSEL. Judges DYE, VAN VOORHIS and BURKE dissent and vote to affirm.


Summaries of

Luce v. Hartman

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 14, 1959
6 N.Y.2d 786 (N.Y. 1959)
Case details for

Luce v. Hartman

Case Details

Full title:MARK LUCE, Appellant, v. LAURA HARTMAN, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 14, 1959

Citations

6 N.Y.2d 786 (N.Y. 1959)
188 N.Y.S.2d 184
159 N.E.2d 677

Citing Cases

Hoggard v. Otis Elevator Co.

(See Schmidt v. Merchants Desp. Transp. Co., 270 N.Y. 287, rearg. den. 271 N.Y. 531; cf. Luce v. Hartman, 6…

Williams v. City of New York

This is because (a) the liability sought to be imposed is not based on harm which occurred on the subject…