Kolb v. Kolb (237 A.D. 910, 1933)

Judgment affirmed, with costs. The inference sought to be drawn on the basis of an alleged untightened rim-nut is not predicated on fact. The inference that the wheel came off is likewise without fact for its support. The case in principle is not unlike Higgins v. Mason (255 N. Y. 104). Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Young and Tompkins, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal and a new trial on the ground that there was a question of fact for submission to the jury.