Markel v. Spencer
| Decision Date | 26 February 1959 |
| Parties | , 157 N.E.2d 713 Christopher MARKEL, Respondent, v. Philip R. SPENCER, Defendant, and The Ford Motor Company, Appellant. Sharee MARKEL v. Philip R. SPENCER, Defendant, and Ford Motor Company, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 5 A.D.2d 400, 171 N.Y.S.2d 770.
Driver and occupant of first automobile brought actions against manufacturer of second automobile and the driver thereof for injuries sustained by driver and occupant of first automobile when second automobile ran into rear of first automobile on failure of brakes of second automobile to work because of the breaking of a defective bolt connecting brake pedal arm.
The Supreme Court, Wayne County, Frederic T. Henry, J., entered judgments in favor of the driver and occupant of the first automobile and entered orders denying motions of manufacturer to dismiss and for a directed verdict, and the manufacturer appealed.
The Appellate Division, Halpern, J., affirmed the judgments and orders and held that evidence was sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the manufacturer so as to authorize submission of case to the jury. Kimball and McCurn, JJ., dissented.
The manufacturer appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the law of New York was completely contrary to what the driver and occupant of the first automobile and the Appellate Division said that it was, and that res ipsa loquitur doctrine did not apply, and that therefore driver and occupant of first automobile did not prove any negligence on part of manufacturer.
Oviatt, Gilman, O'Brien & Forman, Rochester, for appellant.
Falk & Schoenwald, Rochester, for respondents.
In each action: Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNally v. Addis
...as are reflected in the record (People v. Leonard, Supra; Markel v. Spencer, 5 A.D.2d 400, 171 N.Y.S.2d 770, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 958, 184 N.Y.S.2d 835, 157 N.E.2d 713). Recent cases in this State involving section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and provisions of the Penal Law have impl......
-
Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc.
...v. Westinghouse X-Ray Co., 288 N.Y. 486, 41 N.E.2d 177; Noone v. Perlberg, Inc., 294 N.Y. 680, 60 N.E.2d 839; Markel v. Spencer, 5 N.Y.2d 958, 184 N.Y.S.2d 835, 157 N.E.2d 713; and see the nonprivity warranty cases such as Greenberg v. Lorenz, 9 N.Y.2d 195, 213 N.Y.S.2d 39, 173 N.E.2d 773).......
-
Cohen v. Varig Airlines (S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense)
...inference drawn is the only one that is fair and reasonable (see Markel v. Spencer, 5 A.D.2d 400, 171 N.Y.S.2d 770, aff'd 5 N.Y.2d 958, 184 N.Y.S.2d 835, 157 N.E.2d 713)" (Ridings v. Vaccarello, 55 A.D.2d 650, 651, 390 N.Y.S.2d 152, 153 (2nd Dept. As noted in Nieskes & Craig, Inc. v. Schoon......
-
Caruth v. Mariani
...Motors, Inc., 252 N.C. 123, 113 S.E.2d 302 (1960); Markel v. Spencer, 5 A.D.2d 400, 171 N.Y.S.2d 770 (1958), aff'd, 5 N.Y.2d 958, 184 N.Y.S.2d 835, 157 N.E.2d 713 (1959); Noble v. Consolidated Beverage, Inc., 63 Wash.2d 478, 387 P.2d 765 (1963). For a compendium of cases in this general are......