Case Name: Ellen McNally, Appellant, v. Oakwood (a Cemetery Corporation), Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-11-12
Citations: 210 A.D. 612
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ellen McNally, Appellant, v. Oakwood (a Cemetery Corporation), Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 612–619

Head Matter:
Ellen McNally, Appellant, v. Oakwood (a Cemetery Corporation), Respondent.
Fourth Department,
November 12, 1924.
Negligence — action to recover for personal injuries suffered when plaintiff fell through trap door on defendant’s premises — defendant, cemetery corporation, did limited retail business in sale of plants and Sowers raised in its greenhouse and so advertised — plaintiff visited greenhouse, made purchase, went to office and workroom to pay for it, walked down passageway to inspect cut flowers in cabinet and fell through open trap door — plaintiff was invitee generally — question of fact whether she was invitee in part of room where trap door was located — duty on defendant to use reasonable care — error to set aside verdict in favor of plaintiff.
In an action to recover damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff when she fell through an open trap door on defendant’s premises, it was error for the court to set aside a verdict in her favor, since it appears that the defendant, a cemetery corporation, owned and operated a greenhouse and did a limited retail business in the sale of flowers and plants and so advertised to the public; that the plaintiff went to the defendant’s greenhouse and purchased some flowers and then went to its office and workroom in the rear of the greenhouse to wait until the flowers could be wrapped; that while she was waiting she walked down a short passage between a desk and a wall of the room, for the purpose of inspecting some cut flowers which were in a cabinet near a window, and while passing along this passageway she fell through an open trap door which was not protected by a guard or warning sign.
The plaintiff was a general invitee on the premises of the defendant since it appears that the defendant advertised, by signs displayed, to sell plants and cut flowers, and whether or not she was an invitee, as to the part of the room where she was injured, was a question of fact for the jury.
The plaintiff, who went to the defendant’s place of business, remained an invitee while there and the duty was cast upon the defendant to use reasonable care to see that she was not exposed to any unnecessary danger while moving about the place in a way that might reasonably be expected. The plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable freedom, having come on the premises at the invitation of the defendant, to examine and inspect goods offered for sale, and if the defendant wished to prevent her from going to certain parts of its premises, it should have warned her against the peril of so doing.
Clark, J., dissents, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Ellen McNally, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Onondaga Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Onondaga on the 26th day of February, 1924, setting aside the verdict of a jury for $6,500 in favor of the plaintiff, and granting a new trial.
Olmsted, Van Bergen & Searl [A. Lee Olmsted of counsel], for the appellant.
Williams & Cowie [Daniel Scanlon of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Davis, J.:
The defendant, a cemetery corporation owning a large greenhouse, was doing a somewhat limited business in the sale of plants and flowers. To its premises at times came customers who examined and selected such as they desired to purchase. This they were invited to do by signs displayed offering plants and cut flowers for sale. Having made selection, customers often went to an office and workroom in the rear to pay for their purchases and to have them wrapped for carrying.
This office contained a desk and tables or counter. To the right was a short passageway between the desk and wall. It led to a window where behind glass some cut flowers were standing in vases.
The verdict in plaintiff's favor permits the further statement of facts that on March 30, 1923, the plaintiff visited the greenhouse with her brother-in-law and two small boys. They selected plants and passed into the office to pay for them and have them wrapped. Plaintiff was waiting for these transactions to be concluded, when her attention was attracted by the flowers in the " cabinet." Desiring to examine them with an intent to purchase, she walked along the short aisle that led to them. It was somewhat dark in the room at the time, but the way appeared to her clear. She had never been there beforó. Just as she reached the point where the flowers were displayed and was about to examine them, she fell through an open trap door at the left into the cellar, receiving serious injuries. There was no guard or warning sign.
There seems to be no dispute but that plaintiff was an invitee upon the premises in general. The defendant, however, has consistently urged throughout that she was not an invitee in the particular part of the room where she was injured, and that never before had customers wandered so'far from the desk, and it could not reasonably have anticipated that plaintiff would be led into such a position. It says these flowers in vases were not for sale and this " cabinet " was merely a cold box back of a window for . storage and preservation of flowers cut for future use.
There was nothing to indicate these purposes to plaintiff. It is commonly known that florists display in cabinets or show cases cut flowers in vases which they offer to intending customers or visitors for sale. To be sure, the place selected, if it was for display, was crude and inartistic. So were the other fittings of this office and workroom. The sale of plants and flowers at retail was not defendant's principal business. But the testimony and photographs fairly indicate conditions which to one ordinarily familiar with other florist shops, would invite a customer to make inspection. The sign already mentioned advertising cut flowers for sale was confirmatory. The passageway was the only way to reach the flowers thus displayed.
Persons occupying real property for business purposes who invite others to visit their premises are as a general rule required to exercise reasonable prudence in the care thereof, so that visitors will not be unreasonably exposed to danger. (Hart v. Grennell, 122 N. Y. 371; 29 Cyc. 453.)
It often happens that persons chiefly engaged in the sale of goods at wholesale without any special effort to attract retail trade, do permit small sales to customers upon their premises. ' It then becomes a question of fact as to whether one going to make a small purchase into such an establishment is an invitee upon-different parts of the premises which are not ordinarily used in serving the persons making such purchases at retail. The duty of care varies in view of the circumstances, and the owner of the business does not need to give that careful attention to all parts of his premises, as would those who make an effort to attract many customers to goods displayed in all parts of their store.
But the customer coming to such a place remains an invitee and the duty is cast upon the owner to use reasonable care to see that he may move about on his errand as might reasonably be expected, without unnecessary danger.
Trap doors, excavations and obstructions have been not infrequent sources of injury to customers while doing business upon the premises of another. Sometimes in cases like this where retail trade was blit an incident of the general business conducted, the courts in this and other jurisdictions have permitted recovery where an invitee has received the injury through the negligence of the owner, determined as a question of fact. There must be granted to the customer a reasonable freedom to examine and inspect goods offered for sale; or he must be warned of peril, if it is sought to restrict his movements where otherwise he would be likely to go. (Sunderlin v. Hollister, 4 App. Div. 478; Cheifetz v. Hills, 86 Misc. Rep. 7; Gallagher v. Halpern, 95 id. 185; Petty v. Stebbins, 164 Ill. App. 439; Christopher Co. v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191; McDermott v. Sallaway, 198 Mass. 517; Kean v. Schoening, 103 Mo. App. 77; MacDonough v. Woolworth Co., 91 N. J. L. 677.)
The questions of defendant's negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence were carefully submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The verdict determined that plaintiff as an invitee upon the premises was in exercise of her rights, and that her injury was due to the defendant's lack of due care. The verdict was not contrary to law or against the weight of evidence. We cannot say the verdict was excessive.
We find no sound reason why this verdict should have been set aside; and the order should, therefore, be reversed on the law and facts, the verdict reinstated and judgment ordered for plaintiff thereon, with costs.
Hubbs, P. J., Sears and Crouch, JJ., concur; Clark, J., dissents in an opinion and votes for affirmance.