Hart v. Grennell

• Decision Date: 21 October 1890
• Citation: 122 N.Y. 371,25 N.E. 354
• Parties: HART v. GRENNELL et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

122 N.Y. 371

25 N.E. 354

HART

v.GRENNELL et al.

Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division.

Oct. 21, 1890.

Appeal from city court of Brooklyn, general term.

Wm. J. Gaynor, for appellants.

I. S. Catlin, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict for personal injuries received from falling over a small truck in the defendants' store in the city of Brooklyn, and it is claimed that the accident was caused by defendants' negligence. The defendants kept a store for the sale of painters' supplies. About noon of the day of the accident, the plaintiff went to the store to purchase some oil. He was met by a clerk near the office, which was about the middle of the store, on the east side, who received his order and went back to the rear of the store to draw the oil. The plaintiff paid for the oil, and also purchased a brush at the brush counter, which was on the opposite side of the store, near the Fulton-Streetentrance. After that he concluded he would purchase more oil, and started to go towards the rear of the store. He was again met by the clerk near the office, and gave his order. The clerk went again to the rear of the store, and the plaintiff followed him, and the oil having been drawn and paid for, the plaintiff, in turning around to receive his change from the clerk, who had gone to and was returning from the cashier's desk, tripped over the handle of the truck, and fell and received the injuries complained of. The truck was a small, four-wheeled appliance, three feet long, two feet wide, and eleven inches high, with an iron tongue or handle three feet long. It was used in moving goods about the store, and to and fro between the store and wagons. Upon both sides of the store, near the entrance, were counters. On the east side, about the middle of the store, was an office, and opposite this was a stove. In the rear of the office was a packing counter, and in the rear of the stove was a varnish rack. Along the rear wall were oil cans, or tanks. Between the packing counter and rear wall, heavy goods were piled up in tiers, with spaces between them, and between this pile of goods and the varnish rack was an open passageway. In this passage-way, near the pile of goods at the time of the accident, stood the truck, its tongue lying down with its end resting upon the floor. The store was lighted, and the situation of every object was apparent to any person who cared to observe them. We are of the opinion that the evidence did not establish the defendants' liability, and that the complaint should have been dismissed.

The general rule applicable to persons occupying real property for business purposes, and who invite and induce others to visit their premises, is that they must use reasonable prudence and care to keep their property in such a condition that those who go there shall not be unreasonably and unnecessarily exposed to danger. The measure of their duty is reasonable prudence and care. Larkin v. O'Neill, 119 N....