Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co. of America
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeals by the plaintiff in each action from judgments of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Richmond on the 16th day of May, 1916, upon the dismissal of the complaints by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case. The actions were tried together.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam:.
Before the defendant could invoke the decision of the Court of Appeals, that expert evidence to support the plaintiffs’ theory that the geyser was exploded by heat due to the friction incident to the driving in of the steel nail, was “too speculative,” there must have been on this trial uncontradicted proof of similar usage without accident in the largest manufactories for many years. (See Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co., 212 N. Y. 120.) As the court, upon motion of the defendant, dismissed the plaintiff at the close of his case, there is, in this record, no such proof adduced…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Paul v. . Consolidated Fireworks Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Morrow v. . Westchester Electric Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Morrow v. Westchester Electric Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Dye v. . Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Paul v. Consolidated Fireworks Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- O'Leary v. Atlantic Amusement Co.New York Supreme Court · 1926