Legal Opinion

Carradine v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 30, 1963PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

We agree with the Appellate Division that the proper standard of care owed to trespassers by a property owner, in refraining from willful, wanton or intentional acts or their equivalents, is to be determined from the pertinent facts and relevant circumstances of each case. We feel, however, that a new trial should be ordered in this case, since the trial court erroneously charged the jury, with exception taken, that the inflammable liquid involved was inherently dangerous as a matter of law. (See, e.g., Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp., 280 N. Y. 110; Hall v. New York Tel. Co., 214 N. Y. 49;…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Collentine v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
  2. Mayer v. Temple Properties Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1954
  3. Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1939
  4. Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  5. Hall v. . New York Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1915

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Fenton v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  2. Masone v. GianottiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  3. Sadler v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API