Lastowski v. Norge Coin-O-Matic, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Justice Hopkins,
in his dissent states: “ Transposed to the parent-child relationship in the family, the rule of liability logically should therefore be whether the parent acted as a reasonable parent would have acted under the circumstances. TMs was the rule adopted in California (Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal. 3d 914, supra), which, in my opinion, best fits the factual and legal patterns implicit in the family structure.” (P. 142)
I can think of no better answer to that contention than to quote from Judge Fuld’s dissent in Badigian v. Badigian (9 N Y 2d 472, 481, supra), the sense of wMch was…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Goller v. WhiteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Gibson v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Hartfield v. RoperNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Cosgrove v. . OgdenNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Silesky Ex Rel. Silesky v. KelmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.