Cosulich v. Standard Oil Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Mew York, entered upon an order made March 6, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. This action was brought to recover the damages sustained by the burning of plaintiffs’ vessel. The ground assigned for the defendant’s liability was that the injury was wholly due to defendant’s negligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Mew York, entered upon an order made March 6, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. This action was brought to recover the damages sustained by the burning of plaintiffs’ vessel. The ground assigned for the defendant’s liability was that the injury was wholly due to defendant’s negligence. The defendant at the time of the burning owned and managed a petroleum refinery on Mewton creek in the county of Kings. And the…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
We are of the opinion that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs failed to establish a cause of action against the defendant, and consequently, that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint made after plaintiffs had rested their case.
The fact that the injury sustained by the plaintiffs may have been a direct result of the fire, which originated upon the premises of the defendant, does not of itself render it liable to respond in damages therefor.
The defendant was not maintaining a nuisance. Its business was lawful, and in its conduct the law does not impose the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mullen v. . St. JohnNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Beck v. . CarterNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Losee v. . BuchananNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Parrot v. Wells, Fargo & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
- National Ulster County Bank v. MaddenNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Morejon v. Rais Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2006
- Stone v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Judson v. Giant Powder Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Clark v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Roscigno v. Colonial Beacon Oil Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.