From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seitz v. Bd. of Educ., Un. Free Sch. Dist. No. 1

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1954
284 App. Div. 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Opinion

November 10, 1954.

Present — Vaughan, J.P., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.


Judgment and order of Niagara County Court and judgments of the North Tonawanda City Court reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted in the North Tonawanda City Court, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum: The court charged the jury that this infant was not an invitee. No exception was taken. Thus the charge became the law of the case and it was the jury's duty to follow the instruction, whether it was correct or not. Whether the infant was an invitee while upon the abutment was a question of fact to be determined by the jury upon proper instructions. The measure of the duty of care required of the defendant was dependent upon the status of the infant as an invitee, licensee or trespasser. Under the circumstances and in the interests of justice, we think there should be a new trial. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Niagara County Court, affirming two judgments of North Tonawanda City Court, for plaintiffs in negligence actions.)


Summaries of

Seitz v. Bd. of Educ., Un. Free Sch. Dist. No. 1

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1954
284 App. Div. 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)
Case details for

Seitz v. Bd. of Educ., Un. Free Sch. Dist. No. 1

Case Details

Full title:HERBERT SEITZ, Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, UNION FREE SCHOOL…

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1954

Citations

284 App. Div. 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Citing Cases

Stevens v. Central School District No. 1

In New York, the liability of school districts or school boards is determined by the same rules and…