Legal Opinion
Danielenko v. Kinney Rent a Car, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 12, 1982PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Wachtler, J.
The essential thrust of plaintiffs’ claim is that defendants were negligent in not posting a sufficient number of guards to protect against the surreptitious placement of a bomb in one of their vehicles and in not searching each vehicle prior to rental for detection of hidden harmful devices. Although it is clear that defendants owed plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care, we find that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence in that they introduced no evidence that defendants in any way breached the duty owed.
Tracealarm, Inc. (Tracealarm),…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Greene v. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Danielenko v. Kinney Rent a Car, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
3Cited by53 opinions
- Rivera v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Kush v. City of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Di Ponzio v. RiordanNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Vought v. Teachers College, Columbia UniversityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Gordon v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.