Zobel v. City of New York

Decision Date21 October 1949
Citation88 N.E.2d 722,300 N.Y. 490
PartiesJohn W. ZOBEL, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 275 App.Div. 722, 87 N.Y.S.2d 264.

Action by John W. Zobel against the City of New York for personal injuries sustained while plaintiff was standing on a platform of the defendant's subway railroad. The plaintiff was standing on the platform vomiting with his head beyond the edge of the platform.

A judgment for the plaintiff was reversed by the Appellate Division, 275 App.Div. 722, 87 N.Y.S.2d 264, on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and the plaintiff appeals.Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur except LOUGHRAN, C. J., and CONWAY and FULD, JJ., who dissent.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Gallagher v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 1 Abril 1957
    ... ... April 1, 1957 ... Archie V. Latto, New York City, for appellant. John V. Higgins, New York City, on the brief ...          Walter H ... Co., 140 App.Div. 874, 125 N.Y.S. 622; Connelly v. Carrig, 244 N.Y. 81, 154 N.E. 829; Zobel v. City of New York, ... ...
  • Feldman v. New York City Transit Authority
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Mayo 1965
    ...'heedless of ordinary precautions in a place of known danger' (Zobel v. City of New York, 275 App.Div. 782, 87 N.Y.S.2d 264, affd. 300 N.Y. 490, 88 N.E.2d 722). He was not a reckless intruder into danger. He was attempting to find a fire in a busy station within a few feet of the place wher......
  • Feldman v. New York City Transit Authority
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 15 Diciembre 1964
    ...of ordinary precautions in a place of known danger.' (Zobel v. City of New York, 275 App.Div. 782, 87 N.Y.S.2d 264, affirmed 300 N.Y. 490, 88 N.E.2d 722). Nor may the defendant be cast in liability by reason of the application of the doctrine of last clear chance. To do so would require, in......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT