Legal Opinion

Coyer v. Hyster Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 2, 1990PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In order for plaintiffs to succeed in this negligence action, it *921must be first demonstrated that defendants owed them a legal duty (D’Amico v Christie, 71 NY2d 76, 87; Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 187; Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 437). "In the absence of duty, there is no breach and without a breach there is no liability” (Pulka v Edelman, 40 NY2d 781, 782, rearg denied 41 NY2d 901). It is the responsibility of the courts in fixing the orbit of duty " ’to limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree’ ” (Strauss v Belle Realty Co., 65 NY2d 399, 402, quoting…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Turcotte v. FellNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Pulka v. EdelmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. D'Amico v. ChristieNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Tobin v. GrossmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Eiseman v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1987

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Moore v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Coyer v. Hyster Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Moore v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API