Hatman v. Boettigheimer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hatman v. Boettigheimer

128 N.Y.S. 22

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 N.Y.S. 22 (Hatman v. Boettigheimer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hatman v. Boettigheimer, 128 N.Y.S. 22 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

This action is brought by an infant 3% years of age, through his guardian, to recover damages for an injury alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant. The defendant is the owner of a tenement house in Rivington street. One of the hallways of the house leads into a back yard about 25 feet wide and 25 feet long. Adjacent to the house, in the yard, was a stairway leading into the cellar of the house. On one side of the stairway was the fence, and on the other side was an iron railing. The entrance to the stairway was open. The plaintiff, having been permitted by his parents to play in the yard, fell down the stairs.

It is claimed that the defendant was negligent in failing to guard, by a gate or otherwise, the opening to the cellar stairs. We do not understand that the defendant was legally under such a duty. As there is no evidence in the case from which negligence on the part of the defendant could be inferred, the complaint should have been dismissed.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

This action is brought by an infant 3% years of age, through his guardian, to recover damages for an injury alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant. The defendant is the owner of a tenement house in Rivington street. One of the hallways of the house leads into a back yard about 25 feet wide and 25 feet long. Adjacent to the house, in the yard, was a stairway leading into the cellar of the house. On one side of the stairway was the fence, and on the other side was an iron railing. The entrance to the stairway was open. The plaintiff, having been permitted by his parents to play in the yard, fell down the stairs.

It is claimed that the defendant was negligent in failing to guard, by a gate or otherwise, the opening to the cellar stairs. We do not understand that the defendant was legally under such a duty. As there is no evidence in the case from which negligence on the part of the defendant could be inferred, the complaint should have been dismissed.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 N.Y.S. 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatman-v-boettigheimer-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack