Case ID: nys_128/html/0528-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VORCE v. MURRAY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
    March 8, 1911.)
    Negligence (§ 29)—Dangerous Premises—-Obligation of Owner.
    One in charge of a walk furnishing the means of access to his house and to other premises owned by him owes a duty to oue visiting him.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. § 41; Dec. Dig. § 29.]
    Sewell and Houghton, TJ., dissenting.
    Appeal from Trial Term.
    Action by Orrin Vor.ce against Eleanor D. Murray. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial granted.
    
      Argued before SMITH, P. J„ and KELLOGG, SEWELL, HOUGHTON, and BETTS, JJ.
    Edgar T. Brackett (James A. Leary and Walter A. Eullerton, of counsel), for appellant.
    • Charles B. Templeton (Nash Rockwood and L. B. McICelvey, of counsel), for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

It is fair to assume from the record that the walk in question was the means of access to Mrs. Murray’s house, which the plaintiff was visiting. It was also the means of access to other tenements and premises owned by the defendant, and apparently she had charge of it. The defendant, therefore, owed a duty to him.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

SEWELL and HOUGHTON, JJ., dissent.