Case Name: Mary E. Moore, Respondent, v. The Mohican Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-11
Citations: 175 A.D. 964
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary E. Moore, Respondent, v. The Mohican Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 964–964

Head Matter:
Fourth Department,
November, 1916.
Mary E. Moore, Respondent, v. The Mohican Company, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the Brie county clerk’s office on the 17th day of April, 1916, in favor of the plaintiff, and also from an order entered on the same day denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that it was the law of the case as charged by the court that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the oily condition of defendant’s floors, -unless she satisfied the jury that there was a pool or unnecessary accumulation of oil at the place where she slipped differing in that respect from the general condition of the floor. The verdict for the plaintiff necessarily implies that there was such a pool or accumulation. We think this verdict is against the weight of the evidence. All concurred, except Kruse, P. J., who dissented in a memorandum.

Opinion:
Kruse, P. J. (dissenting):
I dissent. I think the case was submitted to the jury upon too narrow a ground, but even at that it seems to me there is evidence to sustain the verdict. It does not seem useful to send the case back simply on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence. There is abundant proof to show that the floor was not oiled in the usual way, but in a manner to make it unusually slippery, causing people to fall, as was shown by the evidence of actual occurrences. I vote for affirmance.