From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miranda v. Lo Curto

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 26, 1928
163 N.E. 557 (N.Y. 1928)

Opinion

Argued October 17, 1928

Decided October 26, 1928

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Theodore H. Lord, Fred H. Rees and Daniel Mungall for appellant.

Leonard F. Fish and William Seligson for respondent.


The record before us contains no sufficient evidence from which the jury might find that at the time of the accident the automobile of the defendant was operated by his son as his agent. There is even no proof that this was a family car. Had such proof been present it might be necessary to determine the question of liability under Missell v. Hayes ( 86 N.J.L. 348), assuming that that case states the common law of New York as we interpret it. The accident happening in New Jersey, section 282-e of our Highway Law has no application.

The judgment of the Trial Term and of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, ANDREWS, LEHMAN, KELLOGG and O'BRIEN, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Miranda v. Lo Curto

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 26, 1928
163 N.E. 557 (N.Y. 1928)
Case details for

Miranda v. Lo Curto

Case Details

Full title:MATILDA MIRANDA, Respondent, v. MELCHIORRI LO CURTO, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 26, 1928

Citations

163 N.E. 557 (N.Y. 1928)
163 N.E. 557

Citing Cases

Hanseman v. Hamilton

In the majority of cases the courts have chosen to impose vicarious liability only if it was the law of the…

Fornaro v. Jill Bros.

The parties thus established the law of the case; and, in the circumstances, plaintiffs cannot now claim that…