Dollard v. Roberts

Citation130 N.Y. 269,29 N.E. 104
PartiesDOLLARD v. ROBERTS.
Decision Date01 December 1891
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department. Affirmed.

Action by Thomas Dollard against Edward Roberts for injuries to a minor daughter of plaintiff, alleged to have been received through defendant's negligence. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the general term. Defendant appeals.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by BRADLEY, J.:

This action was brought to recover damages for the loss of service of the plaintiff's minor daughter, resulting from a personal injury to her by the falling upon her of plaster from the ceiling of the hallway of a tenement-house fronting on East 104th street in the city of New York, and for the expense of medical attendance on account of such injury. The defendant was the owner of the building, and the occupants were his tenants. The plaintiff with his family occupied apartments on the top floor, and below that were two floors, also occupied by families; and the next below,-the ground floor,-was used as a drug-store. The hallway on the ground floor was common to all the occupants of the three floors above it, and was their only means of access to their apartments from the street, and of passage into it from them. On August 26, 1884, when passing along in this hallway, the plaintiff's daughter was struck on the head by plaster falling from the ceiling, 11 feet in height, and in that manner received the injury by which the alleged disability was produced.

Jacob F. Miller, for appellant.

Clifford A. H. Bartlett, for respondent.

BRADLEY, J., ( after stating the facts.)

The alleged cause of action was for loss of service and medical expenses in consequence of the injury to the plaintiff's daughter; and the liability of the defendant was dependent upon the fact that the injury was solely attributable to his negligent failure to perform a duty assumed by him in his relation of landlord to the plaintiff as his tenant. If the hallway had been part of the premises demised to the plaintiff, there would have been no liability of the defendant to him. But the argument of the defendant's counsel, founded upon the proposition that such was the relation of the parties to that portion of the building, does not seem to be applicable to the present case. It was a four-floor tenement-house. The apartments on the second, third, and fourth floors were separately rented for use by families as dwelling-places. The plaintiff had rented, and with his family occupied, the fourth or top floor. Other families occupied the second and third, and on the ground floor was a drug-store, and a hallway common to the occupants of the floors above. It was the means provided for their passage-way for ingress and egress into and from the building in going to and from and apartments from and into the street. It was essentially provided for that purpose, and necessarily common to the use of such occupants. Their right of passage through it was necessary to the availability for occupancy of the apartments rented by them. It was provided for their use in passing to and from the apartments demised to them, of which it constituted no part. It was therefore subject to their right of passage in it, under the control of the defendant, who was the owner, and their landlord; and upon him was the duty of exercising reasonable care in keeping the hallway in suitable repair and condition for the use in safety by his tenants of apartments on the floors above it. Donohue v. Kendall, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep. 386, 98 N. Y. 635;Palmer v. Dearing, 93 N. Y. 7;Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33;Lindsey v. Leighton, 150 Mass. 285, 22 N. E. Rep. 901; Peil v. Reinhart, 127 N. Y. 381, 27 N. E. Rep. 1077. The evidence permitted the conclusion of negligence of the defendant. For some time prior to the injury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • District of Columbia v. Mitchell, 84-1299.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • November 16, 1987
    ...negligence (or assumption of risk) if those code volations cause injury. Scoggins, 419 A.2d at 1005-06; accord, Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N.Y. 269, 29 N.E. 104 (1891) (tenant's child not contributorily negligent for walking through common hallway under ceiling she knew to be defective since i......
  • Cullings v. Goetz
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1931
    ...the possession of the lessee, and the dangerous condition is in the ways or other parts retained by the lessor. Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N. Y. 269, 29 N. E. 104,14 L. R. A. 238; Kilmer v. White, supra; American Law Inst., Restatement of the Law of Torts, § 230. The judgment should be affirme......
  • Brauner v. Snell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 11, 1922
    ......249, 151. S.W. 921; Burtis v. Davison, 199 Mich. 14, 165 N.W. 670; Hinthorn v. Benfer, 90 Kan. 731, 136 P. 247, L. R. A. 1915B, 98; Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N.Y. 269,. 29 N.E. 104, 14 L. R. A. 238; Robertson Lumber Co. v. Anderson, 96 Minn. 527, 105 N.W. 972; Mesher v. Osborne,. 75 ......
  • Putnam v. Stout
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 1976
    ......615 West Corp., 2 N.Y.2d 476, 481, 161 N.Y.S.2d 106, 108, 141 N.E.2d 602, 603; Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N.Y. 269, 29 N.E. 104; cf. Molte v. Corn Exch. Bank Trust Co., 267 N.Y. 544, 196 N.E. 570; 2 B Warren's Negligence, Landlord and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT