Case Name: Lillian Ten Broeck, an Infant, by Vinnie Ten Broeck, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. John Deinhardt, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-06-07
Citations: 120 A.D. 473
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lillian Ten Broeck, an Infant, by Vinnie Ten Broeck, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. John Deinhardt, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
Lillian Ten Broeck, an Infant, by Vinnie Ten Broeck, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. John Deinhardt, Appellant.
Second Department,
June 7, 1907.
Negligence — landlord and tenant—failure to secure door.
The landlord of a tenement house is under no duty to provide hooks to fasten the front door to the wall when open; and a tenant who is injured by glass from the door window which broke when the door shut in g. gust of wind is not entitled to recover.
Appeal by the defendant, John Deinhardt, from, a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of 27ew York, in favor of the plaintiff, entered - upon the decision of the-court in an action to recover damages-for negligence.
W. H. Burby, for the appellant.
Harry C. Underhill, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
The plaintiff, then two years old, was sitting on the stoop of the defendant's tenement house, when a gust of wind, apparently from the opening on the inside to the, roof, or from some open window, slammed the front door shut with such violence as'-to smash-the glass paneljn it, and throw the fragments-of glass out on the stoop and cut the plaintiff. The negligence is that the door had no hook to fasten it back to the wall of the vestibule when open-. It never had one. " The house was a new one. The accident happened in July, and both this outer, door and the inside vestibule'door were standing open., .The plaintiff's mother was á tenant'of the house, and was also its janitor, and the plaintiff lived with her: There is no evidence that' the mother ever complained to the defendant of the lack of a hook on the .door, or-asked that one be put there.
It would be carrying the liability of a landlord for negligence to an extreme'that has no foundation to uphold this judgment. If the door, was dangerous without a hook that was just as plain to every one as to the landlord, ' It has remained1 until1 now' for any one to suggest that the'millions of front doors without hooks to. hold them back when open are dangerous. . . '
The judgment should be reversed. '
• Hirsohberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the. event. -