Legal Opinion
Devitt v. Continental Casualty Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 21, 1934PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPersonius, J.
Joseph H. Bennett was the owner of an automobile covered by a liability policy issued by the defendant. While Mr. Bennett was on a joint business and pleasure trip, accompanied by his family, he asked his son Bertram, then fourteen years of age, to drive. While the son was driving, and due to his negligence, the plaintiff was struck by the automobile and received personal injuries. The insured owner was hable under section 59 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
The plaintiff sued Joseph H. Bennett and recovered a judgment. Though notified of the suit, the defendant insurer disclaimed and did not…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Grant v. KnepperNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Arcara v. MoresseNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Gerka v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Brustein v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Horst Ex Rel. Horst v. HoltzenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
- Twogood v. American Farmers Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
- Taylor v. United States Casualty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1935