Greenfield v. Doepfner

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenfield v. Doepfner

49 Misc. 651, 97 N.Y.S. 1043

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 15, 1906·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Scott, J.

The evidence that the hall and stairways were insufficiently lighted and that this was the immediate cause of the accident is quite satisfactory. We may not say, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because she only steadied herself against the bannister, without actually grasping it (Brown v. Wittner, 43 App. Div. 135), nor should we, in my opinion, so find as matter of fact, in face of the opposite view taken by the trial justice. The damages were very moderate.

I favor affirmance, with costs.

Giegkebich and Gbeehbaum, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Scott, J.

The evidence that the hall and stairways were insufficiently lighted and that this was the immediate cause of the accident is quite satisfactory. We may not say, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because she only steadied herself against the bannister, without actually grasping it (Brown v. Wittner, 43 App. Div. 135), nor should we, in my opinion, so find as matter of fact, in face of the opposite view taken by the trial justice. The damages were very moderate.

I favor affirmance, with costs.

Giegkebich and Gbeehbaum, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Greenfield v. Doepfner, 49 Misc. 651, 97 N.Y.S. 1043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

49 Misc. 651 (Greenfield v. Doepfner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

I favor affirmance, with costs.

Related