Legal Opinion
Ford v. Steindon
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided January 25, 1962PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Per curiam
The conclusion of the trial court that plaintiff adduced no evidence that defendants had knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog harbored by them in the office of their gasoline and service station, which attacked and bit the plaintiff, is contrary to the facts established in the record. The circumstance that defendants posted the sign above the office door warning persons, including business invitees such as plaintiff, to “Beware of Dog” is evidence that defendants were cognizant of the likelihood that the dog might attack persons unknown to it. Moreover, the circumstance that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bernardine v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
- Brice v. . BauerNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Deeley v. . HeintzNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Hahnke v. . FriederichNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Carlisle v. CassasaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Farrior v. PaytonHawaii Supreme Court · 1977
- Tipton v. Town of TaborSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Lynch v. NacewiczAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- DeVaul v. Carvigo Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Roupp v. ConradAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.