Case Name: Edith M. Aucock, Appellant, v. Neisner Brothers, Inc., Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1954-12-03
Citations: 308 N.Y. 41
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edith M. Aucock, Appellant, v. Neisner Brothers, Inc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 308
Pages: 41–44

Head Matter:
Edith M. Aucock, Appellant, v. Neisner Brothers, Inc., Respondent.
Argued October 7,1954; reargued November 16, 1954;
decided December 3, 1954.
James H. Gilroy, Jr., for appellant.
Defendant’s negligence was a question of fact for the jury. (Hovey v. State of New York, 261 App. Div. 759, 262 App. Div. 791, 287 N. Y. 663; Wilson v. Jaybro Realty & Development Co., 289 N. Y. 410; Toppi v. McDonald, 128 App. Div. 443, 199 N. Y. 585; Loughran v. City of New York, 298 N. Y. 320; Boylhart v. Di Marco & Reimann, 270 N. Y. 217; McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 247 N. Y. 340; Junkermann v. Tilyon Realty Co., 213 N. Y. 404; Ingersoll v. Liberty Bank of Buffalo, 278 N. Y. 1; Becker v. Liscio, 223 App. Div. 698.)
Frank G. Pratt and Willard R. Pratt for respondent.
I. Plaintiff’s evidence presented no question of fact for the jury. (Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 N. Y. 413; Hovey v. State of New York, 261 App. Div. 759, 262 App. Div. 791, 287 N. Y. 663; Wilson v. Jaybro Realty & Development Co., 289 N. Y. 410; Brown v. Welsbach Corp., 301 N. Y. 202.) II. Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. (McKay v. Carsons Dept. Store, 263 App. Div. 820.) III. The trial court erred in excluding the photograph of the gum machine, which was claimed to have obstructed access to the handrail.

Opinion:
Van Voorhis, J.
The Appellate Division directed that the complaint be dismissed upon the ground that plaintiff failed to establish any actionable negligence upon the part of defendant. We think that this disposition of the action was correct. Plaintiff-appellant fell while descending a flight of three steps leading from the street level to the floor level, immediately inside of the entrance to defendant's store at 195 Genesee Street in the city of Utica, New York. This short stairway was equipped with railings forming three lanes, any one of which was available to plaintiff for entrance and descent. No defect has been established in this stairway, with the alleged exception of the presence of a gum vending machine located at the top of the stairway at the left-hand side of the left lane as plaintiff entered. This machine occupied enough space so that plaintiff could not reach the left handrail in order to take hold of it while passing the machine. The negligence charged is that the vending machine interfered with plaintiff, causing her to lose her balance as she reached with her left hand for the railing behind it. If there had been a solid wall at the left edge of the steps, there would have been no opportunity to make such a contention as plaintiff asserts here. It is only the suggestion of an implied invitation to take hold of the railing in spite of the obstacle presented by the presence of the vending machine that is at the foundation of her claim. We think that this is too attenuated a theory upon which to base liability in this case.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.