Kaufman v. Young

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaufman v. Young

157 N.Y.S. 778

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 157 N.Y.S. 778 (Kaufman v. Young) 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

Kaufman v. Young, 157 N.Y.S. 778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHMAN, J.

The plaintiff testified that the stairs were “oily and slippery.” condition is that an hour before the accident, at about 6 o’clock, an employé of the defendant washed down the steps, as she did on every other Sunday morning, and that she left the steps “wet and slippery.” There is no testimony that she used any oil in the cleaning, or that ' she permitted any water or other substance to collect in puddles; on j the contrary, it affirmatively appears that the steps were of slate, and i that the employé washed them down with a “wet rag.”

I know of no method by which slate steps can be washed without leaving them wet. The only question, therefore, that the trial justice could have left to the jury, is whether it is negligent for the owner of a tenement house to wash slate steps at 6 o’clock each Sunday morning. I do not think that, under any view of what constitutes •reasonable care, such an act could be considered as negligent, and the trial justice properly refused to leave the question to the jury.

Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs. All concur.

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

LEHMAN, J.

The plaintiff testified that the stairs were “oily and slippery.” condition is that an hour before the accident, at about 6 o’clock, an employé of the defendant washed down the steps, as she did on every other Sunday morning, and that she left the steps “wet and slippery.” There is no testimony that she used any oil in the cleaning, or that ' she permitted any water or other substance to collect in puddles; on j the contrary, it affirmatively appears that the steps were of slate, and i that the employé washed them down with a “wet rag.”

I know of no method by which slate steps can be washed without leaving them wet. The only question, therefore, that the trial justice could have left to the jury, is whether it is negligent for the owner of a tenement house to wash slate steps at 6 o’clock each Sunday morning. I do not think that, under any view of what constitutes •reasonable care, such an act could be considered as negligent, and the trial justice properly refused to leave the question to the jury.

Judgment affirmed, with $25 costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.Y.S. 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-young-nyappterm-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack