Kingsland v. Erie County Agricultural Society
New York Court of Appeals
I. Plaintiff established no cause of action against the defendant fireworks company as a corporation because that corporation was not connected in any way with the transaction involved. (Schmedes v. Deffaa, 153 App.
Read the full summary
I. Plaintiff established no cause of action against the defendant fireworks company as a corporation because that corporation was not connected in any way with the transaction involved. (Schmedes v. Deffaa, 153 App. Div 819, 21.4 N. T. 675; Kartell v. Simonson Son Go., 218 N. Y. 345; Standard Oil Go. v. U. S. 215; Wyllie v. Palmer, 137 N. Y. 248; Higgins v. Western Union Tel Go., 156 N. Y. 75; McNamara v. Leipzig, 227 N. Y. 291; Wright Steam Engine Works v. Lawrence Cement Go., 167 N. Y. 440; Anderson v. Boyer, 156 N. Y. 93.) II. Plaintiff failed to establish any cause of action against…
1DissentLewis, J.
As I view tbe decision about to be made it pays scant heed to tbe long established rule of tort law that “ Tbe proximate cause of an event must be held to be that wbicb in a natural sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces that event and without wbicb that event would not have occurred.” (Rider v. Syracuse Rayid Tr. Ry. Co., 171 N. Y. 139, 147.) I cannot bring myself to tbe conclusion reached by a majority of tbe court that tbe act of William Kingsland committed at tbe defendant’s fairgrounds on tbe nigbt of August 25, 1945 — when be pilfered and took home a bomb — and those subsequent.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. CalhounSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Rider v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Perry v. . Rochester Lime Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Maloney v. . KaplanNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.