Pell v. Reinhart

• Decision Date: 23 June 1891
• Citation: 27 N.E. 1077,127 N.Y. 381
• Parties: PELL v. REINHART.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

127 N.Y. 381

27 N.E. 1077

PELL

v.REINHART.

Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division.

June 23, 1891.

Appeal from city court of Brooklyn, general term.

Ferando Solinger, for appellant.

George F. Elliott, for respondent.

BRADLEY, J.

The plaintiff, as tenant of the defendant, occupied some rooms in a tenement-house of the latter, and had access to such rooms by means of a stairway common to the occupants of the building. It appears by the evidence on her part that in descending the stairway in the evening of January 15, 1888, the plaintiff fell and received the injuries complained of, and that such fall was caused by the defective condition of the stair carpet; that the carpet had been in such condition for several months; and that the attention of the defendant had in December previous been called to it by the plaintiff, and he said he would remove it. There was some conflict in the evidence of the parties as to the latter fact, and as to the subject of the injury and its cause; but that there were, and for considerable time had been, holes in the stairway carpet, was not seriously questioned. It was the duty of the defendant to use reasonable care to keep this stairway in repair and suitable condition for the safe passage of his tenants over it in their way to and from their rooms, and for failure to do so he was chargeable with liability for injuries suffered by them without their fault while properly using it for such purpose. Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33;Lindsey v. Leighton, 150 Mass. 285, 22 N. E. Rep. 901; Donohue v. Kendall, 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 386; Neyer v. Miller, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 516. The conclusion was warranted by the evidence that the condition of the carpet was such as to justify apprehension of danger of tripping in passing upon the stairway, and that at the time in question the plaintiff's foot was caught in a hole in the carpet, thus causing her fall and injury; and that the defendant was chargeable with negligence for permitting it to remain in such condition, and with its consequences to the plaintiff, unless her negligence contributed to the injury which she sustained. It is urged that as she was cognizant of the situation, and the hall of the stairway was well lighted by a lamp, her fall was necessarily attributable to the fault or negligence of the plaintiff. Her previous knowledge of the condition of the passage-way on the stairs imposed upon her the duty to exercise a greater degree of care than...