Case Name: LENZ v. ALDRICH
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-06-23
Citations: 39 N.Y.S. 1022
Docket Number: 
Parties: LENZ v. ALDRICH.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 39
Pages: 1022–1028

Head Matter:
LENZ v. ALDRICH.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 23, 1896.)
Negligence—Dangerous Premises.
The owner of an apartment house, in the yard of which clothes poles were erected for the use of the tenants, is not required, during the time that such poles should ordinarily be safe, to make a critical inspection thereof, if there is nothing to cause a suspicion that they are unsafe. Hatch, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Kings county.
Action by May Augusta Lenz, an infant, against Elizabeth W. Aldrich, for personal injuries. The complaint was dismissed on the merits, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and PRATT, CULLEN, BARTLETT, and HATCH, JJ.
Niles & Johnson (Wm. W. Niles, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
James L. Barger, for respondent.

Opinion:
CULLEN, J.
We agree with Mr. Justice HATCH in his view of the facts that the record before us presents, and shall add nothing to his statement, referring only to such facts as in our judgment control the disposition of the case. We differ from our associate in that we think that the facts are insufficient to warrant a jury in imputing negligence to the defendant. It was proven that the clothespole, when originally put up, was a good pole, and of proper material for the purpose. The life of such poles the evidence shows to be from eight to ten years, and this pole had been up but five years. The pole, at the time of the accident, had rotted almost through, about an inch above the ground. Experts testified that the decay must have been going on for a year. During this period the pole had been in constant use, and no one had noticed the decay, or any weakness or instability in it. From these facts two conclusions are irresistible: First, that ordinary, cursory examination would not have disclosed the decay or defect; second, that a critical examination or inspection would have exposed it. Neither the defendant nor her janitor had any knowledge or notice of the decayed condition of the pole. This, however, would not give the defendant immunity from liability, if, in the exercise of reasonable care, she or her agent should have discovered the defect. The question is therefore narrowed to this: Should the defendant have made a critical examination, in detail, of a clothespole, during a period when, by the ordinary life of such poles, the pole should have been sound, and there was nothing to give occasion for suspicion to the contrary? We think not. The case is not similar to that of a bridge, a high scaffold on which men are to work, or even to that of a telegraph pole in the public highway. In such cases the danger from defects in the structures are great, and if accident occurs it is apt to be serious in its results. The clothespole was some six inches or more in diameter, and seven feet high,—no very formidable structure, at the most. It was one of those common structures or appurtenances, used in or about dwellings, that, unless so old as to cause suspicion of unsoundness, are never subjected to more than a cursory examination. No one causes his ceiling to be inspected and carefully examined, unless cracks or other signs of weakness appear. One trusts to the security of the balusters along his stairs, so long as no signs of weakness or instability are manifest. The same is true of a fence; of the doors, windows, and stairs in a house. This conduct is justified by two reasons: First, the danger from defects in these structures, or parts of structures, is not apt to be great; second, nearly always, before they become so defective as to be dangerous, they show preliminary signs of weakness or insecurity manifest to the casual observer. We could permit a verdict for the plaintiff in this case to stand only by wholly discarding our common knowledge of the habits and conduct of the community. We are not wanting in authority to justify this conclusion. In Flood v. Telegraph Co., 131 N. Y. 603, 30 N. E. 196, a system of inspection of the cross-arms of telegraph poles by looking at them from the ground was held sufficient, as against the servants of the defendant, the linemen. wrho in the course of their employment had to climb the poles. In Alperin v. Earle, 55 Hun, 211, 8 N. Y. Supp. 51, the defendant was held not liable for a failure to discover the defect in a slat which had decayed on the under side, though a careful examination of the slat would have disclosed the defect.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
BROWN, P. J., and BARTLETT, J., concur. PRATT, J., does not vote.