Case ID: ad_241/html/0904-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Taylor, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fourth Department,
    May, 1934.
    Annie M. Laundrie, Appellant, v. W. T. Grant Company, Respondent.
   Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs .to the appellant to abide the event, on the ground that the testimony of the plaintiff as to the condition of oil upon the floor where the floor in general appeared to have been freshly oiled and in relation to pointing out the condition to the manager of the defendant, taken with all the testimony in the case, was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to go to the jury. All concur, except Taylor, J., who dissents and votes for affirmance in the following memorandum:

Taylor, J.

(dissenting). The plaintiff presented as her witness the man who did all the floor oiling for defendant. His testimony and all the proof presented by plaintiff show that no oil was placed upon the floor by defendant after April thirtieth and that the accident did not occur until May tenth. The record further shows that the oiling was always done with extreme care, leaving no dangerous situation. I dissent upon the authority of Mona v. Erion (223 App. Div. 526).