Legal Opinion

Sherwood v. Lax & Abowitz

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 26, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinbrink, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the complaint. From the allegations which must be taken as admitted (Baumann v. Baumann, 222 App. Div. 460), it appears that a pair of shoes manufactured by the defendant was sold by Franklin, Simon & Company to the plaintiff. Plaintiff wore the shoes and stood on the landing of a staircase, when one of the heels broke, thereby causing her to lose her balance and fall down the stairs. It is alleged that plaintiff’s resulting injury was caused solely by reason of defendant’s carelessness and negligence in the manufacture of the shoes. To sustain the complaint it…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Baumann v. BaumannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  3. Field v. Empire Case Goods Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  4. Byers v. Flushovalve Co.New York Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Cook v. A. Garside & Sons, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Larson v. United States Rubber Co.District Court, D. Montana · 1958
  2. Timpson v. Marshall, Meadows & Stewart, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API