Miller v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1933 |
| Citation | 186 N.E. 410,262 N.Y. 107 |
| Parties | MILLER v. GIMBEL BROS., Inc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Ursula A. Miller against Gimbel Bros., Inc. Judgment of Trial Term entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Division (237 App. Div. 907, 261 N. Y. S. 1005), and defendant appeals.
Judgment of Appellate Division and Trial Term reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.
James J. Mahoney and George J. Stacy, both of New York City, for appellant.
Frank J. Irving, of New York City, for respondent.
The plaintiff slipped and fell as she was about to enter the defendant's department store through a revolving door. She has recovered judgment for the consequent injuries. A short entranceway led from the street to the revolving door. The floor of Tennessee marble slanted downward. On that day there was a heavy rainfall, the floor was wet, and there was some mud in a corner of the revolving door.
The cause of plaintiff's fall is not shown by any direct evidence. It does not appear that the plaintiff slipped upon the mud at the door or that the movement of the door was impeded. We may assume that rainwater may make the smooth sloping floor somewhat more slippery than if the floor were dry. None the less it does not appear that the floor even when wet was dangerous. The owner of a store must take reasonable care that his customers shall not be exposed to danger of injury through conditions in the store or at the entrance which he invites the public to use. He cannot prevent some water and mud being brought into an entranceway on a rainy day and he is not responsible for injuries caused thereby unless it is shown that the construction of the store is inherently dangerous or that he failed to use care to remedy conditions which had become dangerous, after actual or constructive notice of such conditions. That has not been shown here.
The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.
HUBBS, J., not sitting.
Judgments reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dudley v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
...... 191 Ky. 557, 231 S.W. 22; Bodine v. Goerke Co. (N. J. 1926) 133 A. 295; Halle Bros. Co. v. Rails (1924) 19 Ohio App. 427; S. S. Kresge Co. v. Fader (1927), 116 Ohio St. 718, 158 ... the New York Court of Appeals unanimously reversed on the. authority of Miller vs. Gimbel Bros. Inc., 262 N.Y. 107, 186 N.E. 410, an extremely similar case. . . ......
-
Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp.
...250 S.W.2d 413, 418. 'He cannot prevent some water and mud being brought into an entranceway on a rainy day * * *' Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 262 N.Y. 107, 186 N.E. 410. It is not his duty 'to keep a force of moppers to mop up the rain as fast as it falls or blows in, or is carried in by wet f......
-
Nipon v. Yale Club of N.Y.C.
...J's, Inc., 06 Civ. 956 (DF), 2008 WL 1780048 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2008) (Freeman, M.J.), citing Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 262 N.Y. 107, 108, 186 N.E. 410, 410 (1933) (per curiam), Goldman v. Waldbaum, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 436, 437, 669 N.Y.S.2d 669, 670 (2dDep't 1998) and Ohanessian v. Chase ......
-
Nussbaum v. Railroad
...remedy conditions which had become dangerous, after actual or constructive notice of such conditions.”) (citing Miller v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., 262 N.Y. 107, 186 N.E. 410 (1933)); see also Solazzo v. New York City Transit Auth., 6 N.Y.3d 734, 735, 810 N.Y.S.2d 121, 843 N.E.2d 748 (2005) (“A p......