Ermann v. Kahn
| Citation | 255 N.Y. 627,175 N.E. 342 |
| Parties | Leo ERMANN, Appellant, v. Harry KAHN et al., Defendant, and Charles W. McHose, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 10 February 1931 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment, entered June 20, 1930, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (229 App. Div. 693, 242 N. Y. S. 573) reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint, in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of the defendants. Plaintiff was injured as the result of a collision between a taxicab in which he was a passenger and an automobile owned by the respondent. The Appellate Division directed a dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that at the time of the accident respondent's automobile was being operated by another without his permission.Harry A. Gair, of New York City, for appellants.
John W. Jordan, Harold R. Medina, and Harry A. Talbot, all of New York City, for respondent.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
LEHMAN, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waters v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co.
...Iowa 851, 52 N.W.2d 513 (liability based on statute); Ermann v. Kahn, 1930, 229 App.Div. 693, 242 N.Y.S. 573, 575, affirmed 1931, 255 N.Y. 627, 175 N.E. 342; Bryan v. Schatz, 1949, 77 N.D. 9, 39 N.W.2d 435 (liability under family purpose doctrine); White v. Keller, 1950, 188 Or. 378, 215 P.......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Huther
...101) neither was its use specifically forbidden nor circumscribed (Ermann v. Kahn, 229 App.Div. 693, 242 N.Y.S. 573, affirmed 255 N.Y. 627, 175 N.E. 342). The fact that the operator of the car was unlicensed at the time does not preclude liability since a 'legal user' has been held to be on......
- Jennings v. Delaney