Plotz v. Greene
| Decision Date | 15 May 1961 |
| Citation | 13 A.D.2d 807,215 N.Y.S.2d 813 |
| Parties | Helen PLOTZ and Milton Plotz, Respondents, v. Anna P. GREENE and Carl Greene, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Galli, Terhune, Gibbons & Mulvehill, New York City, for appellants; Patrick E. Gibbons, New York City, of counsel.
House, Grossman, Vorhaus & Hemley, New York City, for respondents; Benjamin H. Siff, New York City, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, Acting P. J., and UGHETTA, KLEINFELD, CHRIST and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 8, 1959, on a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, after a jury trial.
Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and the complaint dismissed. Findings of fact implicit in the jury's verdict are affirmed.
The female plaintiff and the female defendant were members of the Brooklyn Vassar Club, an association of former students of Vassar College. A regular meeting of the Club was being held at the defendants' home, pursuant to notices sent out by the Club's corresponding secretary at the direction of the female plaintiff, the Club's president. During the course of the meeting and while the speaker of the evening was delivering her address, the doorbell rang and the female plaintiff arose from her seat and went toward the door with the intention of opening it. In so doing, she stepped on a six-by-eight-foot rug which was on the waxed parquet floor in the hallway. The rug was not affixed to the floor and it rumpled or skidded, and she fell, sustaining severe injuries.
The defendants received no compensation for holding the meeting in their home, although they might have received reimbursement for the expenses of some of the refreshments served that evening. The purpose for which the female plaintiff came to the defendants' home was of no material or pecuniary benefit, actual or potential, to the defendants.
Although the defendants did not personally invite the female plaintiff to their home, she comes within the tort rules applicable to a social guest or licensee and not within those applicable to a business visitor or invitee (Dotson v. Haddock, 46 Wash.2d 52, 278 P.2d 338; Wilson v. Bogert, 81 Idaho 535, 347 P.2d 341, 347; Maher v. Voss, 7 Terry 418, 46 Del. 418, 84 A.2d 527; see, e. g., Wilder v. Ayers, 2 A.D.2d 354, 156 N.Y.S.2d 85, affirmed 3 N.Y.2d 725, 163 N.Y.S.2d 966). A social guest or licensee must take the premises as he finds them, and he is entitled to no greater protection than the members of the family of the owner of the premises.
Upon the facts disclosed by this record, the defendants owed the female plaintiff only the duty to exercise reasonable care to disclose to her any dangerous defects known to them (the defendants) and not likely to be discovered by her. In our opinion, her fall was not caused by any such defect (Krause v. Alper, 4 N.Y.2d 518, 176 N.Y.S.2d 349; Traub v. Liekefet, 2 A.D.2d 22, 152 N.Y.S.2d 971, affirmed 4 N.Y.2d 747, 171 N.Y.S.2d 865; see, e. g., Dotson v. Haddock, supra).
CHRIST, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum:
I agree that the female plaintiff was a social guest or licensee and therefore took the premises as she found them. I also agree that she may recover only if injured by a 'trap' or 'hidden danger' of which she had no knowledge (Wilder v. Ayers, supra, 2 A.D.2d 354, 156 N.Y.S.2d 85, affirmed 3 N.Y.2d 725, 163 N.Y.S.2d 966).
The case was properly left to the jury on that basis (cf. Curren v. O'Connor, 304 N.Y. 515, 109 N.E.2d 605; Ordway v. Hilliard, 266 App.Div. 1056, 44 N.Y.S.2d 819, 45 N.Y.S.2d 725). Contrary to the majority, I believe that the proof here was sufficient for the jury to find that there was a trap or hidden danger and that such trap or danger was the proximate cause of the female plaintiff's fall.
The proof established that the defendants had waxed and buffed the parquet floor three weeks before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sideman v. Guttman
...v. Schlaks,17 A.D.2d 153, 232 N.Y.S.2d 814, mot. for lv. to app. den. 13 N.Y.2d 593, 240 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 190 N.E.2d 905; Plotz v. Greene, 13 A.D.2d 807, 215 N.Y.S.2d 813, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 991, 224 N.Y.S.2d 675, 180 N.E.2d 257; Traub v. Liekefet, 2 A.D.2d 22, 152 N.Y.S.2d 971, affd. 4 N.Y.2d 7......
-
Levine v. Barfus
...finds them and she is entitled to no greater protection than the members of the family of the owners of the premises (Plotz v. Greene, 13 A.D.2d 807, 215 N.Y.S.2d 813, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 991, 224 N.Y.S.2d 675; Krause v. Alper, 4 N.Y.2d 518, 176 N.Y.S.2d 349, 151 N.E.2d 895; 38 Amer. Jur., Negl......
-
Mevorah v. Garyn
...than the members of the family of the owners of the premises (Levine v. Barfus, 28 A.D.2d 896, 282 N.Y.S.2d 23; see Plotz v. Greene, 13 A.D.2d 807, 215 N.Y.S.2d 813, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 991, 224 N.Y.S.2d 675, 180 N.E.2d 257). The only duty owed to him by defendants was to exercise reasonable ca......
-
Finkle v. Zimmerman
...the out-of-pocket expenses, was insufficient to warrant a finding that plaintiff was a business visitor or invitee (see Plotz v. Greene, 13 A.D.2d 807, 215 N.Y.S.2d 813, affd. 10 N.Y.2d 991, 224 N.Y.S.2d 675, 180 N.E.2d 257) whose presence conferred 'an economic benefit' upon the owners or ......