Stelter v. Cordes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stelter v. Cordes

146 A.D. 300, 130 N.Y.S. 688, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1872

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 27, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 146 A.D. 300 (Stelter v. Cordes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stelter v. Cordes, 146 A.D. 300, 130 N.Y.S. 688, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenks, P. J.:

To sustain this judgment the plaintiff invokes necessarily the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiff when bowling in a public bowling alley slipped and ran a splinter into his foot. The obligation of the defendants was that of reasonable care and prudence lest their premises might injure the plaintiff when in a reasonable contemplated use thereof. (Larkin v. O’Neill, 119 N. Y. 221.) The rule in question arises when, the occurrence as proved points necessarily to negligence of some kind on the part of the defendant. (Robinson v. Consolidated Gas Co., 194 N. Y. 37, 41; Griffen v. Manice, 166 id. 188.). The mere fact that the occurrence was in the premises of the defendants does not raise any presumption of wrongdoing. (Curran v. Warren Chemical and Manufacturing Co., 36 N. Y. 153.) The splinter was but a small slender bit of wood. There was no proof of its existence for any period prior to the [301]*301occurrence, so that proper care could have removed it, or that it was of such probable origin that proper inspection could, have discovered it. And there is no proof that the alley was defective in construction or condition so that such a splinter might be a natural result of some defect thereof. The plaintiff and his companions had used the alley on this very occasion for some time before the occurrence. I fail to see, then, that this mishap as proved points necessarily to any actionable neglect .on the part of the defendants. Moreover, the plaintiff and his companions were in the immediate lawful possession and use of the premises when the accident happened. (See Bevan Negligence in Law [3d ed.], 118.)

I advise that the judgment be reversed and that a new trial be ordered, costs to abide the event.

Hirschberg, Burr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Jenks, P. J.:

To sustain this judgment the plaintiff invokes necessarily the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The plaintiff when bowling in a public bowling alley slipped and ran a splinter into his foot. The obligation of the defendants was that of reasonable care and prudence lest their premises might injure the plaintiff when in a reasonable contemplated use thereof. (Larkin v. O’Neill, 119 N. Y. 221.) The rule in question arises when, the occurrence as proved points necessarily to negligence of some kind on the part of the defendant. (Robinson v. Consolidated Gas Co., 194 N. Y. 37, 41; Griffen v. Manice, 166 id. 188.). The mere fact that the occurrence was in the premises of the defendants does not raise any presumption of wrongdoing. (Curran v. Warren Chemical and Manufacturing Co., 36 N. Y. 153.) The splinter was but a small slender bit of wood. There was no proof of its existence for any period prior to the [301]*301occurrence, so that proper care could have removed it, or that it was of such probable origin that proper inspection could, have discovered it. And there is no proof that the alley was defective in construction or condition so that such a splinter might be a natural result of some defect thereof. The plaintiff and his companions had used the alley on this very occasion for some time before the occurrence. I fail to see, then, that this mishap as proved points necessarily to any actionable neglect .on the part of the defendants. Moreover, the plaintiff and his companions were in the immediate lawful possession and use of the premises when the accident happened. (See Bevan Negligence in Law [3d ed.], 118.)

I advise that the judgment be reversed and that a new trial be ordered, costs to abide the event.

Hirschberg, Burr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.D. 300, 130 N.Y.S. 688, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stelter-v-cordes-nyappdiv-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack