Larkin v. O'Neill

• Decision Date: 31 January 1890
• Citation: 119 N.Y. 221,23 N.E. 563
• Parties: LARKIN v. O'NEILL.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

119 N.Y. 221

23 N.E. 563

LARKIN

v.O'NEILL.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 31, 1890.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.

Edward C. James, for appellant.

Ira Leo Bamberger, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict as damages for personal injuries sustained by falling down stairs in the defendant's store on Sixth avenue, between Twentieth and Twenth-First streets, in the city of New York, on the 27th day of February, 1885. It is claimed that this accident was the result of the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff is a married woman about 35 years of age. She had been for 10 years prior to the accident a customer of the defendant's store, and during that time, in every year, had frequently been at the store to purchase goods for herself and her family. One the day of the accident she went to the store to buy goods and entered on the Twentieth-Street side. After making some purchases on the ground floor, she went up to the cloak-room, on the second floor, in the elevator; and, after purchasing a cloak there, she inquired for the underwear department, and was told that it was down stairs. One of the clerks pointed out to her the stairs leading down to this part of the store. While attempting to walk down the stairs, she fell, and sustained the injuries for which the damages were awarded.

It appeared by the undisputed evidence that the stairway had been built a few years before by a competent builder of 28 years' experience. It was composed of 11 steps, each 15 feet long, with a rise of 7 1/2 inches, and a tread of 10 1/2 inches. The stairs were carpeted down the center for a width of about 9 feet, leaving about a yard uncovered at either side. On the left, going down, was a railing protecting the well-hole, and on the right a plain wall. On the uncarpeted part of the step next the railing, and a few inches inside it, there was placed on the steps a small form or figure for exhibiting suits for children two or three years of age. A great number of people passed up and down these stairs every day. The defendant proved by an architect and stair-builder that the stairs were safely, properly, and conveniently constructed, in all respects. Indeed, the only proof of negligence on the part of the defendant that seems to be relied upon by the plaintiff to uphold the verdict is the presence of the figure for exhibiting children's clothing next the railing, and the absence from the steps of footholds, brass plates, or rubber pads. The defendant was a dry-goods dealer, transacting a very extensive business. A large number of people frequented his store every day. The business that he was conducting was, from its very nature, an invitation to the public to enter upon his premises. He was bound to use reasonable prudence and care in keeping his place in such a condition that people who went there by his invitation were not...