Greeley v. Miller's, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1930
• Citation: 150 A. 500,111 Conn. 584
• Parties: GREELEY v. MILLER'S, INC.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

150 A. 500

111 Conn. 584

GREELEY v. MILLER'S, INC.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 2, 1930

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Walter M Pickett, Judge.

Action by Ann E. Greeley against Miller's, Incorporated, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. A verdict was directed for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Error and new trial ordered.

Negligence of storekeeper where invitee was struck by falling glass due to pressure of crowd against glass windows of store at sale held for jury.

Albert M. Herrmann and Nathan Goldberg, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Walter J. Walsh, of New Haven, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

WHEELER, C.J.

The jury might reasonably have found from the evidence these facts: The defendant conducted a store in New Haven dealing in women's apparel. On July 17, 1929, it inserted in a New Haven evening paper an advertisement of a special sale on July 18, 1929, at 9 o'clock sharp of a special lot of dresses at $1 apiece. The plaintiff read this advertisement and went to this store the next morning at about quarter to 9 for the purpose of purchasing some of these dresses. There were already quite a few people at the entrance, and the plaintiff stood in the entranceway to the store a few feet from the line of the sidewalk. The entrance was 4 feet 9 inches wide at the sidewalk. The length of the entrance from the sidewalk line to the door was 16 feet. On either side of this entrance was a show window. The widest distance between the windows on either side was 7 1/2 feet. The prospective customers kept increasing rapidly in numbers, and in a short time stood jammed and packed in this entrance, shoulder to shoulder, and spread thence over the sidewalk. The crowd pressed up close to the store door. The defendant had two supernumerary policemen in the store for the principal purpose of preventing too many entering at one time when the door should be opened. The officers could see through the door the crowd growing thicker and thicker and could hear some tapping or knocking on the windows. Some of the crowd were calling to open the doors. The manager at about 9:10 ordered one of the officers to push the crowd back to ease the door in order that they might take a picture. He came out of the door, succeeded in getting the crowd back a foot or two from the door and then pushed himself sideways through the crowd to the street and returned to the store through a side door. The officer did nothing towards keeping the crowd in order except to request them to step back. The crowd objected to the taking of a picture and to the failure to open the door. They were restless before the officer appeared, and after he left they became more impatient. As soon as the officer left, they closed up and crowded in the entrance again and pushed forward more than they had. Those in front of the plaintiff were not pushing ahead much, but those behind her were pushing more. The officers at the door saw the conduct, actions, and attitude of the crowd. The manager and an assistant were in the store during this period directing the arrangement of the goods for the sale. In five or ten minutes after the officer had returned to the store, the door was opened and the crowd pressed forward sweeping the officers with them a number of feet. The plate glass windows ran down to within a foot or two of the floor. There were four sections of glass in the entrance on each side of the doorway, joining in a point, in all on both sides eight pieces of glass. The pressure of people crowding against them caused them to break, and the falling glass injured the plaintiff. There were no guards or barriers of any kind around the windows to protect them from being broken by the...