Case ID: misc_52/html/0487-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blanchard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sam Barth, an Infant, Etc., Appellant, v. The Borden’s Condensed Milk Company, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    January, 1907.)
    Negligence: Acts or omissions constituting negligence — Personal conduct in general — Careless driving; Contributory negligence — Imputed negligence — Of parent or custodian of child.
    In an action to recover for injuries to a child under six years of age who went across the street to buy some candy and was run over by a wagon, where it appeared that the driver, who was from twenty-five to forty feet distant when the child left the sidewalk, was talking to another driver and had his head turned sideways, it was error to dismiss the complaint.
    Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of' the defendant.
    Rosenbluth & Silverman (Henry Silverman, of counsel), for appellant.
    Thomas M. Rowlette (F. Herbert Wadsworth, of counsel), for respondent.
   Blanchard, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for an injury received by a child five years and nine months old, residing with its parents, by being run over by a wagon in charge of one of the defendant’s drivers. The case came on for trial before a jury; and, at the dose of the testimony, on motion of the defendant’s counsel, the (rial judge dismissed the complaint. Hpon an appeal from a nonsuit the plaintiff is entitled to every fact that the jury could have found from the evidence adduced on his part and to all favorable inferences therefrom; and, if two inferences arise, one favorable and one unfavorable, only the favorable one can be considered. Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 458. The child was concededly non sui 'juris and the testimony given on the part of the plaintiff was to the effect that, on Saturday morning, May 12, 1906, at about nine a. m., the child went upon the street in front of his parents’ residence with a penny given him hy his father with which to purchase some candy, and that he was instructed to look out for wagons and cars. The street in question is not in constant use by vehicles, and children frequently play upon the side walks. The boy left the sidewalk to go upon the street as the defendant’s wagon was approaching from twenty-five to forty feet distant and coming rapidly toward him. The driver of this wagon was speaking to the driver of another wagon near him and, it is reasonable to presume, was paying no attention to what might he in his course, as his head was turned sideways ” as testified to hy plaintiff’s witnesses. The wagon struck the child, causing some injuries. Under the facts and circumstances disclosed by the testimony, it was a question of fact for the jury to determine, and the dismissal of the complaint was error.

Gildebsleeve and Dayton, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.