Case Name: Harriet Friedling, an Infant, by Samuel Friedling, Her Guardian ad Litem, and Samuel Friedling, Respondents, v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., Appellant, and Another, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1942-05-04
Citations: 264 A.D. 772
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harriet Friedling, an Infant, by Samuel Friedling, Her Guardian ad Litem, and Samuel Friedling, Respondents, v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., Appellant, and Another, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 264
Pages: 772–772

Head Matter:
Harriet Friedling, an Infant, by Samuel Friedling, Her Guardian ad Litem, and Samuel Friedling, Respondents, v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., Appellant, and Another, Defendant.

Opinion:
From a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in an action to recover damages for injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff and to recover for medical expenses and loss of services by her father, and from an order denying appellant's motion to set aside the verdict, defendant Railway Express Agency, Inc., appeals. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Adel, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment, to dismiss the appeal from the order denying appellant's motion to set aside the verdict, and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum: The employee at the time of the accident was returning from lunch. The carrying of the battery was incidental thereto. There is nothing to show that the battery was required for immediate use or that the employee could not have waited until the arrival of a truck which he could have used to go for the battery. He was using his car for his own convenience. No authority, express or implied, is shown.