Case ID: ad_273/html/0766-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alice Frontenac, Respondent-Appellant, v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Appellant-Respondent, and Beacon Chemical Corp., Respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant, and, with costs to the defendant-respondent against the ¡plaintiff-appellant plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-appellant. No opinion. Present — Peck, IP. Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.; Peck, P. J., I dissent upon the ground that recovery by the plaintiff is dependent upon expert testimony which is incredible. The plaintiff may have a cause of action against appellant, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, but since the case was not tried on that theory, the judgment may not be supported on that theory. I therefore dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial as to all of the issues.