Court Opinion

ID: 9885534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:07:04.764288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:55.018349
License: Public Domain

Froessel, J.
(dissenting). By affirming the Appellate Division, which reversed the judgment of the trial court based upon a jury verdict, the majority of our court have agreed that the evidence adduced at the trial fails as a matter of law to establish any actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. With this conclusion we cannot concur.
When plaintiff entered defendant’s store to make a purchase, there was before her, at street level, a small terrazzo platform, beyond which were three steps leading down to the store floor proper. Plaintiff, seeking to reach the basement of the store by the shortest and most normal route, proceeded toward the left edge of the platform and steps, intending to use the handrail there in her descent. Upon reaching the edge of the platform, she found her access to the handrail obstructed by a gum ball machine which had been placed alongside the handrail. She stood on the very edge of the top step, and, in her attempt to grasp the handrail by reaching around the gum machine, her foot slipped, causing her to fall and receive serious injuries. Defendant resisted liability upon the ground that no gum machine was present at this location. The jury found plaintiff free from contributory negligence, and the Appellate Division did not disturb that finding.
From the evidence here, it appears that, because of the location of defendant’s gum machine, the left handrail was virtually inaccessible to plaintiff on the top step, and that users of this portion of the stairway were required to lean dangerously far *44over the steps in order to grasp the handrail before beginning their descent. In practical effect, then, the handrail, or its usable portion, did not extend to the top of the stairway, a condition which was held to be “ dangerous ” in Hovey v. State of New York (261 App. Div. 759, affd. 287 N. Y. 663). This handrail was provided for the safety of the store’s patrons and its very presence invited use.
Under these circumstances, it was well within the jury’s province to find that defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care in so placing the gum machine and in failing to' perceive the potential hazard thereby created for users of the stairway.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of Trial Term reinstated.
Desmond, Dye and Fuld, JJ., concur with Van Voorhis, J.; Froessel, J., dissents in an opinion in which Lewis, Ch. J., and Conway, J., concur.
Judgment affirmed.