Case ID: ny-super-ct_51/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARY NEYER, Respondent, v. JOHN F. MILLER, Appellant.
    
      Decided December 1, 1884.
    
      Wegligence case—hall mat.
    
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from order denying defendant’s motion upon the judge’s minutes for a new trial.
    This action was brought to recover damages for an injury to plaintiff, occasioned by the negligence of defendant, or his servants. The plaintiff was an occupant of one of the apartments in an apartment house situated in Seventh street, New York, owned and managed by defendant. She was a member of the family of her son-in-law, a tenant in the building. Upon the entrance hallway, used in common by all the tenants of the building, was a hempen mat, extending nearly the whole length of such hallway, about twenty-six feet. This was suffered to become dangerous, and a large hole, near the stairway in the rear of the hall, was allowed to remain unrepaired for many weeks, and after repeated notices given to the janitor in charge of the building. The plaintiff, in passing along this mat, caught her foot in the hole and fell. She struck her forehead, and by the blow lost the sight permanently of one eye.
    The action was tried before Mr. Justice Ingraham and a jury, May 23, 1884. A verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $2,500.
    The court at General Term, said : “The exceptions taken by the defendant are all untenable. The questions relating to defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence were, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, questions of fact for the jury, and they were fairly left to the jury under a charge which fully guarded all the rights the defendant had, and to which no exception was taken. Upon a careful review of tho whole case, no reason appears why the verdict should be disturbed.
    
      Martin & Smith, and A. P. Whitehead, for appellant.
    
      Matthews, Rapallo & Smith, for respondent.
   Opinion by Freedman, J. ; Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.