Case Name: Elsie Strauss et al., Appellants, v. Nathan Hammer et al., Doing Business under the Name of United Metal Box Co., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1958-05-08
Citations: 4 N.Y.2d 908
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elsie Strauss et al., Appellants, v. Nathan Hammer et al., Doing Business under the Name of United Metal Box Co., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 908–910

Head Matter:
Elsie Strauss et al., Appellants, v. Nathan Hammer et al., Doing Business under the Name of United Metal Box Co., Respondents.
Argued March 25, 1958;
decided May 8, 1958.
Donald 8. Sherwood and Jerome Goleriboeh for appellants.
Samuel E. Swiggett for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Judges Desmond, Dye, Ftjld, Van Voorhis and Burke. Chief Judge Conway and Judge Froessel dissent and vote to reverse upon the ground that a jury question was presented as to whether defendant violated his duty to plaintiff by failing to observe whether she had alighted safely before he started his car. Plaintiff was entitled to every favorable inference that might be drawn from the evidence. There was evidence that defendant '1 was in a hurry to have an appointment at home ' '; that he stopped his car near a street corner to permit plaintiff and her husband to alight to get a taxicab; and that, just as plaintiff alighted and before the car door had closed, it struck her at the same time " the car started to move " — "the car was moving forward". The Trial Judge should not have directed a verdict after the jury disagreed. We think there should be a new trial here.