TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kakargo v. Grange Silo Co.

Leonora Kakargo, as Administratrix of the Estate of John J. Kakargo v. Grange Silo Company, Inc.

Kakargo v. Grange Silo Co., 11 A.D.2d 796 (1960)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 11, 1960
Citations
11 A.D.2d 796204 N.Y.S.2d 10101960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8611

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

— -In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering prior to death, in which the complaint alleges four causes of action (the first two being based on negligence and the third and fourth being based on breach of warranty), plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated December 8, 1959 and entered December 14, 1959, which grants defendant’s motion, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action upon the ground that they are barred by the applicable six-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prae. Act, § 48, subd. 1). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendant had erected a silo on the farm of plaintiff’s intestate. Thereafter, on August 11, 1958, while the intestate was climbing upon a ladder attached to and part of the silo, the ladder broke and the intestate fell and died. With respect to the third and fourth causes of action, reading together the complaint and the plaintiff’s amended bill of particulars, it appears on their face: (1) that, pursuant to a written contract dated August 8, 1951, between defendant and the intestate, defendant completed the erection of the silo on October 25, 1951; (2) that defendant warranted the silo and its ladder to be free from defects and fit for their intended use; (3) that defendant breached its warranty in that the silo and its ladder were defective and unfit for such use; and (4) that the action was not commenced until 1958. It also appears to be undisputed that the action was actually commenced on November 18, 1958, for the statement under rule 234 (of the Rules of Civil Practice) in the appeal record shows that the action was begun on that date. We agree with the learned Special Term that the third and fourth causes of action for breach of warranty accrued on October 25, 1951, when the silo was erected, and not on August 11, 1958, when the accident occurred. Since the action was commenced on November 18, 1958, more than six years after the accrual of the causes for the claimed breach of warranty, such causes of action are barred by the Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prae. Act, § 48, subd. 1). Nolan, P. J., TJghetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1962: 11964: 11968: 11977: 11981: 119622026peak 1962 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Holdridge v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. of Santa Barbara440 F. Supp. 1088 (N.D.N.Y. 1977)
  2. Thomas D. George, John C. Winthrop, and Charles F. Fink v. Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.332 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1964)
  3. Creviston v. General Motors Corporation210 So. 2d 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
  4. Berg v. Remington Arms Company207 F. Supp. 65 (E.D. Pa. 1962)
  5. Burke v. Hamilton Beach Division, Scovill Manufacturing Co.424 A.2d 145 (Me. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list