Legal Opinion

Orlexey v. New York & Queens Electric Light & Power Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1946Published

1Opinion of the CourtF. E. Johnson, J.

At the end of plaintiffs’ direct case the motion to dismiss was because no negligence had been shown; plaintiffs’ position was that the facts shown came within the res ipso loquitur rule. They were: Defendant owned, operated and controlled a manhole in the street, used in connection with its electric service, in which were various electrical connections, wires, conduits, etc.; at the street surface was a circular heavy iron manhole cover, laid in a recess which made its top level with the street; as the plaintiff wife walked across the street and approached the manhole an explosion took…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Griffen v. . ManiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
  3. Volkmar v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
  4. Cosulich v. Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
  5. Tortora v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1935

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

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

Powered by the Exa API