Mentz v. Schieren

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mentz v. Schieren

74 N.Y.S. 889

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 N.Y.S. 889 (Mentz v. Schieren) 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

Mentz v. Schieren, 74 N.Y.S. 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

While walking on Ferry street, a public way, the plaintiff was struck and injured by an iron guard that fell from one of the windows of the premises occupied by the defendants. Under such circumstances, proof of the fact raised the presumption of negligence sufficient to call for an explanation. Volkmar v. Railway Co., 134 N. Y. 418, 420, 31 N. E. 870, 30 Am. St. Rep. 678. The explanation offered by the defendants was inadequate to rebut the presumption. It was an order to a window cleaning company to send some one to clean their windows, and the appearance and work of the latter’s employé, who upon the trial testified, “As I started to clean the first window the first time I was there, I was up on the ladder taking the screws out, and I reached over to take the screws out, the thing hit me on the nose firstbut whether it fell in consequence of his removal of the screws or some of them, or in consequence of insecure fastenings, which gave out while he was in the act of reaching over to take out the screws, and before he had touched the guard, does not appear. The burden imposed upon the defendants not having been removed, the cause was properly submitted,to the jury. The requests for instructions to the jury not charged by the court were properly denied, as they were not strictly applicable to the evidence adduced.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

While walking on Ferry street, a public way, the plaintiff was struck and injured by an iron guard that fell from one of the windows of the premises occupied by the defendants. Under such circumstances, proof of the fact raised the presumption of negligence sufficient to call for an explanation. Volkmar v. Railway Co., 134 N. Y. 418, 420, 31 N. E. 870, 30 Am. St. Rep. 678. The explanation offered by the defendants was inadequate to rebut the presumption. It was an order to a window cleaning company to send some one to clean their windows, and the appearance and work of the latter’s employé, who upon the trial testified, “As I started to clean the first window the first time I was there, I was up on the ladder taking the screws out, and I reached over to take the screws out, the thing hit me on the nose firstbut whether it fell in consequence of his removal of the screws or some of them, or in consequence of insecure fastenings, which gave out while he was in the act of reaching over to take out the screws, and before he had touched the guard, does not appear. The burden imposed upon the defendants not having been removed, the cause was properly submitted,to the jury. The requests for instructions to the jury not charged by the court were properly denied, as they were not strictly applicable to the evidence adduced.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 N.Y.S. 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mentz-v-schieren-nyappterm-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack