Plotz v. Greene
| Decision Date | 07 December 1961 |
| Citation | 180 N.E.2d 257,224 N.Y.S.2d 675,10 N.Y.2d 991 |
| Parties | , 180 N.E.2d 257 Helen PLOTZ et al., Appellants, v. Anna P. GREENE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 13 A.D.2d 807, 215 N.Y.S.2d 813.
The first member of an association of former students of a college, who was injured in a fall when a rug skidded on the waxed floor of the home of the second member, where a regular meeting of the association was being held, and the first member's husband brought an action against the second member and her husband for the first member's injuries, medical expenses, and loss of services.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, Milton M. Wecht, J., rendered a judgment for the first member and her husband, and the second member and her husband appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment on the law, dismissed the complaint, and held that the first member came within the tort rules applicable to a social guest or licensee and not within the rules applicable to a business visitor or invitee, and that the second member and her husband were not liable. Christ, J., dissented.
The first member and her husband appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that even if the first member was a social guest, she proved a case of negligence, and that the first member was an invitee to whom was owed the duty of reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises, and that at the very least the issue was one of fact, and that the rule should be that a landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to all who come on his premises for purposes of legitimate interest to him.
House, Grossman, Vorhaus & Hemley, New York City (Benjamin H. Siff, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Galli, Terhune, Gibbons & Mulvehill, New York City (George L. Ryan and Patrick E. Gibbons, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sideman v. Guttman
...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 747, 171 N.Y.S.2d 865, 148 N.E.2d 912). The duty which the......
-
Levine v. Barfus
...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., Negligence, § 117). The owners are liable for inj......
-
Mevorah v. Garyn
...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 care to disclose to him any dangerous defects known to......
-
Finkle v. Zimmerman
...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 whose use of the premises was 'encouraged' so as to 'fur......