Traub v. Liekefet

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation25 A.L.R.2d 598,2 A.D.2d 22,152 N.Y.S.2d 971
Decision Date26 June 1956
PartiesCarolyn TRAUB and Arthur Traub, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. George LIEKEFET and Olive Liekefet, Defendants-Appellants.

Page 971

152 N.Y.S.2d 971
2 A.D.2d 22
Carolyn TRAUB and Arthur Traub, Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
George LIEKEFET and Olive Liekefet, Defendants-Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 26, 1956.

Page 972

[2 A.D.2d 23] Archie B. Morrison, New York City, of counsel (Robert A. Dwyer and Patrick D. Warren, New York City, with him on the brief; William S. O'Connor, New York City, attorney), for defendants-appellants.

John V. Higgins, New York City, of counsel (O'Neill, Higgins & Latto, New York City, attorneys) for plaintiffs-respondents.

[2 A.D.2d 24] Before PECK, P. J., and BREITEL, FRANK, VALENTE and BERGAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $3,200 and $1,800, respectively. The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint was that the defendants maintained a dangerous condition which consisted of a loose rug on a slippery floor in a vestibule of defendants' one-family house.

It appears from the testimony that the plaintiffs, guests of defendants, entered the premises by means of a side entrance. The doorway opened into a three by five foot vestibule with a linoleum floor almost completely covered by a loose rug. At a point one-half the length of the vestibule was a door leading into the kitchen and at the end of the vestibule a flight of stairs leading to the cellar. There is no claim that the steps constituted a dangerous condition or that they contributed to the accident.

Plaintiff wife testified that she walked a few feet forward in the vestibule when the rug slipped from under her feet and she fell down the stairs. Plaintiff husband testified that he was in the vestibule--but not on the rug--one foot or less behind his wife, when he saw the rug slip out from under her feet, precipitating her down the stairs. Another witness testified that she was in the vestibule at the time with the plaintiffs

Page 973

and that the rug did not move or jerk. From this testimony and the exhibits if the husband was a foot or less behind the wife in the vestibule he must have been on the rug when she fell. Accepting this, the accident could not have happened as plaintiff wife testified. There was no testimony that the floor was waxed or that any preparation was applied to it.

The sole issue presented is whether the evidence established that a dangerous condition or trap was created by defendants. There is no evidence to sustain this theory.

Plaintiff was a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 practice notes
  • Ross v. DeMond
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 1966
    ...30 N.J. 89, 100, 152 A.2d 20, 25, and cases collected, Annotation, Liability for injury to guest in home or similar premises (1952) 25 A.L.R.2d 598, and 3 A.L.R.2d, Later Case Service (1965) The record fails to reflect error in the court's rulings on evidence and instructions In the course ......
  • Wilson v. Bogert, No. 8805
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 8, 1959
    ...N.E.2d 459, 147 A.L.R. 647; Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578, 189 N.E. 588, 92 A.L.R. 1002; 38 Am.Jur., Social Guest, § 117; Annotation 25 A.L.R.2d 598, 600. The fact that the guest may be rendering a minor, incidental service to the host does not change the relationship. McHenry v. Howells,......
  • Emerson v. Holloway Concrete Products Company, No. 17839.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 29, 1960
    ...a licensee on the facts stated has been determined by the trial court, and this, we think, is well supported by the cases collected in 25 A.L.R.2d 598, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of his injury he was carrying out a request by the defendant. The courts of various jurisdictions......
  • Sideman v. Guttman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 27, 1972
    ...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 owner of premises owes to a social guest is twofol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 cases
  • Ross v. DeMond
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 1966
    ...30 N.J. 89, 100, 152 A.2d 20, 25, and cases collected, Annotation, Liability for injury to guest in home or similar premises (1952) 25 A.L.R.2d 598, and 3 A.L.R.2d, Later Case Service (1965) The record fails to reflect error in the court's rulings on evidence and instructions In the course ......
  • Wilson v. Bogert, No. 8805
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 8, 1959
    ...N.E.2d 459, 147 A.L.R. 647; Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578, 189 N.E. 588, 92 A.L.R. 1002; 38 Am.Jur., Social Guest, § 117; Annotation 25 A.L.R.2d 598, 600. The fact that the guest may be rendering a minor, incidental service to the host does not change the relationship. McHenry v. Howells,......
  • Emerson v. Holloway Concrete Products Company, No. 17839.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • June 29, 1960
    ...a licensee on the facts stated has been determined by the trial court, and this, we think, is well supported by the cases collected in 25 A.L.R.2d 598, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of his injury he was carrying out a request by the defendant. The courts of various jurisdictions......
  • Sideman v. Guttman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 27, 1972
    ...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 owner of premises owes to a social guest is twofol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT