Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gregory v. Acme Road Machinery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 6, 1916Published

Appeal by the defendant, Acme Road Machinery Company, from part of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Onondaga Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Onondaga on the 27th day of October, 1916, denying defendant’s motion for an order directing plaintiff to submit to having an X-ray picture taken.

1Dissent

Foote, J. (dissenting):

I dissent and vote for reversal of the order appealed from.

I think the court has the power under section 873 of the Code to require plaintiff to permit a radiograph to he taken of his injured bones as part of his physical examination. The reasons are well stated in the opinion of Wheeler, J., in an unreported case printed in the record. It is the accepted method in universal use of determining the nature and extent of bone injuries. ■ The case of Mizak v. Carborundum Co. (75 Misc. Rep. 205; affd., 151 App. Div. 899) did not involve this question in any way. An order had…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mizak v. Carborundum Co.New York Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Lasher v. S. Bolton's SonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API