Gallagher v. St. Raymond's Roman Catholic Church

• Decision Date: 04 April 1968
• Parties: , 236 N.E.2d 632 Gertrude J. GALLAGHER et al., Appellants, v. ST. RAYMOND'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 401

289 N.Y.S.2d 401

21 N.Y.2d 554, 236 N.E.2d 632

Gertrude J. GALLAGHER et al., Appellants, v. ST. RAYMOND'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 4, 1968.

Benjamin H. Siff, New York City, for appellants.

John J. Lynch and Patrick F. Adams, Mineola, for respondent.

KEATING, Judge.

For many years, the Senior Sodality of St. Raymond's Roman Catholic Church of East Rockaway had been meeting in the parish school. On Monday night, January 4, 1960, Gertrude Gallagher, then 60 years old, arrived to attend the weekly meeting of the Sodality. She climbed the six steps to the landing in front of the center door and entered the school. The lights, which illuminated the exterior of the building, were on.

Mrs. Gallagher left the Sodality at about 11:15 p.m. When she stepped into the night air, she found herself in the dark. Someone had turned the lights off. Remembering that there was a handrail on the steps, Mrs. Gallagher started to move toward the handrail. But she had forgotten that the landing or platform onto which the door opened did not extend to the handrail. As a result, in searching for the handrail, she lost her footing and fell, injuring herself.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Gallaghers in the negligence action thereafter brought by them to recover damages for the injuries sustained by Mrs. Gallagher. Upon defendant's appeal, the Appellate Division (Second Department) unanimously reversed but solely on the law, holding, in accordance with established precedent (McCabe v. Mackay, 253 N.Y. 440, 171 N.E. 699; Kiernan v. Roman Catholic Church of St. John the Evangelist, 11 A.D.2d 997, 205 N.Y.S.2d 706, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 853, 221 N.Y.S.2d 735, 178 N.E.2d 436), that the defendant was under no duty at common law to illuminate an exterior stairway 'with artificial light, in the absence of defective conditions, or conditions of peculiar danger, that may call for special warning'. (McCabe v. Mackay, supra, 253 N.Y. p. 442, 171 N.E. p. 700).

Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Kiernan upon the ground that the handrail was not within reach of a person leaving the building. We agree with the conclusion of the Appellate Division that this factor did not create an unusually hazardous condition calling for a special warning. It would be inconsistent with common experience as well as a most improper distortion of the McCabe rule to hold that the failure 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 articulate a modification of that rule to be followed in cases such as the one at bar.

Whenever the general public is invited into stores, office buildings and other places of public assembly, the owner is charged with the duty of providing the public with a reasonably safe premises, including a safe means of ingress and egress. In general, his duty is to use reasonable care at all times and in all circumstances (Haefeli v. Woodrich Eng. Co., 255 N.Y. 442, 175 N.E. 123). Thus, had Mrs. Gallagher fallen because of a hole or other defective condition in the stairway no question would be raised that the defendant had breached its duty of due care. (Weiner v. Leroco Realty Corp., 279 N.Y. 127, 17 N.E.2d 796; Richards v. Olsen, 259 App.Div. 1112, 21 N.Y.S.2d 371.)

The common-law rule that there was no duty to provide artificial light in the common hallways and stairways of buildings was originally formulated in the age of the gas light (Hilsenbeck v. Guhring, 131 N.Y. 674, 30 N.E. 580 (1892); Brugher v. Buchtenkirch, 167 N.Y. 153, 60 N.E. 420 (1901); Gorman v. White, 19 App.Div. 324, 46 N.Y.S. 1 (1897)). The use of even gas lighting in the interior of buildings was far from universal, while electric lighting of public streets had barely started. The immense quantity of electricity needed to light our cities, towns and villages was still not readily available at low cost.

Nevertheless, even before the traditional rule was given its definitive approval in this court in the McCabe case, its erosion by legislative action began (New York City Code of Ordinances, § 159). And so it has continued. (Multiple Residence Law, Consol.Laws, c. 61--B, § 109 (1952); Administrative Code of City of New York, §§ C26--272.0, C26--743.0 (1938).)

In 1965--albeit principally for public safety...