Hale v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
La Verna Hale v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s cause of action at the close of the plaintiff’s case, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The evidence in tMs case relating to the condition of the steps in question is exceedingly meager. All we have are such conelusory, descriptive adjectives as “worn”, “smooth”, “slippery”; Accordingly, although on the record before us we can do no other but affirm, we would note that the facts in Kline v. Abraham ( 178 N. Y. 377 ) are quite distinguishable from those in this case; and Mitcheltree v. Stair ( 135 App. Div. 210 [1st Dept.]), should not necessarily be followed. These cases do not preclude liability under comparable circumstances, where danger, not voluntarily assumed and due to negligent maintenance, is properly demonstrated. Concur — 'Botein, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, MeGivern and Bastow, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“traffic in the letters of third parties, without their knowledge or consent” is “disreputable business” and an abuse of confidentiality)
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.