Eysaman v. Town of Little Falls
| Citation | 206 N.Y.S.2d 418 |
| Parties | Etta EYSAMAN, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF LITTLE FALLS, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 05 March 1960 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Bernard J. Malone, Little Falls, for plaintiff.
Capecelatro & Capecelatro, Utica, for defendant; Salvador J. Capecelatro, Jr., Utica, of counsel.
The defendant has moved to set aside the verdict of the jury as against the weight of evidence and to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff has failed by a fair preponderance of the evidence to establish that she was free from contributory negligence. The plaintiff was injured on October 4, 1958 when she fell in the town garage owned by the defendant. The plaintiff at the time went to the town garage for the purpose of registering to vote. The town garage consisted of two buildings, one had been used for many years as a town garage and polling place. The town constructed an addition at the rear of the old building and perpendicular to the old garage building which had been used at primary time by the Election Board. The plaintiff went to vote but was not qualified. At that time she was taken by automobile to the garage by a Mrs. Edick. The Election Board on that occasion sat in the new portion of the garage. The plaintiff again was accompanied by Mrs. Edick on the day that she was injured. They went to the new portion of the town garage to which there were two doors facing the street. They found the first door they approached locked. Mrs. Edick thereupon walked to the second door, followed a short distance by the plaintiff. They entered the building by the second door which was not locked and found no one there. There was a door which was open leading into the old portion of the garage. There was testimony that voices were heard coming from the old portion of the garage. Mrs. Edick thereupon walked through this open door. She was followed at a short distance by the plaintiff. The level of the floor of the new portion of the garage was two steps above that of the old portion, there being one step in between. It was dark beyond the doorway according to the plaintiff's testimony and from Mrs. Edick's testimony and the photographs which were in evidence, it was obvious that the old portion of the garage was not well lighted. The town had stored snow removal equipment in close proximity to the area of the doorway, and the windows were not kept clean. The testimony of Mrs. Edick and the photographs in evidence indicated that it was not pitch dark or the area in total darkness, but rather was dimly lighted. The testimony showed that it was a clear, bright day.
Mrs. Edick testified that she had proceeded a short distance into the portion of the old garage and turned around to see the plaintiff in the act of falling. There was no eye witnesses to the actual fall and the plaintiff was unable to say what exactly caused her to fall. The plaintiff did not claim any defect in the step and there was no testimony that her fall was caused by any defect in the floor or step. It was rather urged that the fall was caused by the dangerous condition in the level between the floors of the two buildings and the absence of any warning of that difference in level or the fact that a step existed.
The question of the plaintiff's contributory negligence was submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be decided by them. There are innumerable cases involving this question and the courts have been in many instances seriously divided on the question of submitting the question of contributory negligence to the jury as a question of fact or deciding the same as a question of law. Where the plaintiff proceeded into an area of complete darkness, particularly...
To continue reading
Request your trial