Hilsenbeck v. Guhring

• Citation: 131 N.Y. 674,30 N.E. 580
• Parties: HILSENBECK v. GUHRING.
• Decision Date: 25 March 1892
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

131 N.Y. 674

30 N.E. 580

HILSENBECK

v.GUHRING.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 25, 1892.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.

Action by Leonhardt Hilsenbeck against John M. Guhring for personal injuries. From a judgment of the general term affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Wm. J. Gaynor, (Donald F. Ayres, of counsel,) for appellant.

Charles Steckler, (Alfred Steckler, of counsel,) for respondent.

The facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice DANIELS at general term (12 N. Y. Supp. 792) as follows:

‘The action was brought against the defendant as the owner and possessor of premises situated in the city of Brookyln, and known as ‘No. 206 Calyer Street,’ to recover damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff on or about the 6th day of January, 1889. The building was in part occupied by the defendant as a restaurant and dwelling, and by other persons as tenants, to whom the defendant leased portions of it. On the upper floor the son-in-law of the plaintiff resided, whose family was visited by him on the day of the accident. This occurred about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. The plaintiff descended from the apartments occupied by his son-in-law to the first floor of the building, to make use of the water-closet, which was there maintained for the convenience of the occupants of the building. The stairs terminated in a hall in which the water-closet was located. The hall at the time was dark, receiving no other light than came from a window over the street door; and, as the day was dark, this was insufficient to clear the darkness from the hall. There were three doors in the hall,-one leading into the saloon, the next to the basement, and the third to the water-closet. The evidence of the plaintiff is that he found the second door slightly open, and, supposing that to be the door of the water-closet, passed through it, and fell down the stairs into the basement below, and thereby sustained a fracture of his leg. A gas-jet was maintained in the hall, but it was not at the time lighted. And the evidence tended to establish the fact that the basement was used as a depository for wood and coal and other things, for the use of the occupants of the building; that the defendant had in the saloon a key to the door through which the plaintiff passed when he fell into the basement; and that this door was at times locked, and at others left unlocked. But the defendant, and the person in his employment in the saloon, were the individuals who appear to have had the control and management of the door, in the way of locking and unlocking it.'

PER CURIAM.

It seems to us that the plaintiff failed to make out a cause of action by showing either negligence on the part of the defendant or freedom from negligence contributing to the injury on his own part. As to the negligence of the defendant, we cannot see upon what facts it can properly be based. The door into the cellar was on this...