Douglass v. Meyer
The Superior Court of New York City
The plaintiff complains that while passing the defendant’s place of business, he was struck by an iron bar falling from the elevator lift in front of defendant’s store ; that the blow rendered the plaintiff unconscious, and he was carried into the defendant’s premises and there restored to consciousness by a physician procured by the defendant, and that the plaintiff was thereafter sent home in a cab.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff complains that while passing the defendant’s place of business, he was struck by an iron bar falling from the elevator lift in front of defendant’s store ; that the blow rendered the plaintiff unconscious, and he was carried into the defendant’s premises and there restored to consciousness by a physician procured by the defendant, and that the plaintiff was thereafter sent home in a cab. Plaintiff sues to recover $1,000 for his injuries, charging negligence on the part of the defendant and his servants in the management of the lift. The defendant in his answer denies all…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—McAdam, J.
The general rules of practice provide that where an examination is required under sections 870, 871 and 872 of the Code, the affidavit shall specify the facts and circumstances which show, in conformity with subdivision 4 of section 872, that the examination of the party is material and necessary (Buie 83). In compliance with this rule, the plaintiff swears he believes “ that the defendant knows the name of the physician who attended the plaintiff and the names of the various witnesses who were present at the accident, whom deponent will need to prove the manner of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jenkins v. . PutnamNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Glenney v. . StedwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Herbage v. . City of UticaNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Carter v. GoodNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Schepmoes v. BoussonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.