Bohlig v. Schmitt
| Decision Date | 08 January 1959 |
| Citation | 182 N.Y.S.2d 831,5 N.Y.2d 885 |
| Parties | , 156 N.E.2d 459 Selma BOHLIG, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits which were of Frederick Bohlig, Deceased, Appellant, v. Karl SCHMITT et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 5 A.D.2d 1002, 173 N.Y.S.2d 678.
Administratrix of deceased tenant brought action against landlords to recover for the conscious pain and suffering and death of tenant, who was fatally injured when he fell down an outside stairway, which had no sidewalls or railings.
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, Arthur D. Brennan, J., entered judgment in favor of the administratrix, and the landlord appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment and held that at common law there is no duty on part of owner to light common ways, in absence of some defective condition, unusual hazard, or peculiar danger, and that the mere absence of a handrail on exterior stairway was not a defective condition, unusual hazard, or peculiar danger.
The administratrix appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that question whether stairway was negligently constructed and maintained was a question of fact.
Kramer & Dillof, New York City (Benjam H. Siff and Charles Kramer, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
William S. O'Connor, New York City (Joseph Fennelly and Paul D. Carrigg, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
Judgment affirmed, without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gallagher v. St. Raymond's Roman Catholic Church
...to have a handrail on the steps constituted an unusual hazard (Bohlig v. Schmitt, 5 A.D.2d 1002, 173 N.Y.S.2d 678, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 885, 182 N.Y.S.2d 831, 156 N.E.2d 459). We are, therefore, called upon to determine whether the traditional common-law rule is still valid or whether we should a......
-
Kiernan v. Roman Catholic Church of St. John the Evangelist
...v. Estis, 1 N.Y.2d 399, 403, 153 N.Y.S.2d 197, and cases cited; also Bohlig v. Schmitt, 5 A.D.2d 1002, 173 N.Y.S.2d 678, affirmed 5 N.Y.2d 885, 182 N.Y.S.2d 831; Hirschman v. Hirschman, 4 A.D.2d 630, 168 N.Y.S.2d 153; McCabe v. Mackay, 253 N.Y. 440, 171 N.E. 699. Clearly, however, this is b......
-
Arango v. Baron
...recent days; Adamo v. DeMar Realty Corp., Supra; see Bohlig v. Schmitt, 5 A.D.2d 1002, 172 N.Y.S.2d 678, aff'd 5 N.Y.2d 885, 182 N.Y.S.2d 831, 156 N.E.2d 459; see Hirschler v. Briarcliff Management Corporation, 275 A.D. 422, 89 N.Y.S.2d 744, aff'd 300 N.Y. 680, 91 N.E.2d I, however, find it......
-
Gallagher v. St. Raymonds Roman Catholic Church
...a defective condition, an unusual hazard or a peculiar danger' (Bohlig v. Schmitt, 5 A.D.2d 1002, 173 N.Y.S.2d 678, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 885, 182 N.Y.S.2d 831, 156 N.E.2d 459). In our opinion, plaintiff was not entitled to rely on the fact that the lights were on when she entered the building or ......