Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Voorhis v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

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

Decided February 17, 1983Published

1ConcurrenceAlexander, J.

The essential facts are not seriously in dispute and they are fairly stated in the dissent. Notwithstanding that the court below may have misstated the law regarding respondeat superior, it seems to us on a review of this record that the fundamental issues dispositive of this lawsuit were whether or not there was a bailment of the $34,000 of jewelry allegedly contained in the suitcase that was lost at Grand Central Terminal, and whether or not there was proof of gross negligence by the Conrail employees. Accepting, as does the dissent, that the suitcase was in fact the subject of a bailment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Magnin v. . DinsmoreNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Nathan v. WoolvertonNew York Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Nathan v. WoolvertonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911

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

Powered by the Exa API