Court Opinion

ID: 9552850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:18:22.984907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:12.854133
License: Public Domain

TOOZE, J., specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. However, I find myself unable to subscribe to that portion of the opinion reading as f ollows:
‘ ‘ Assuming, but not deciding, that liability would attach in a case of this kind, defendants would not, in any event, be liable unless they placed the candy wrapper in the powder room, or, if a third party placed it there, they had actual knowledge of its presence, or constructive notice of the same, from the fact that it had remained in such place for a sufficiently long time that knowledge thereof would be imputed to them.”
In the first place, I deem the foregoing statement to be pure dictum and wholly unnecessary to a decision in this case. In the second place, I feel that it is the *489function of this court to finally decide matters properly before it, not to make unnecessary assumptions of fact or law. Such a procedure does not add anything to the law, nor does it serve as a guide to anyone.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that under no circumstances could liability attach in a case of this kind, and the court should so hold. No other reason for the decision need be assigned. Such a holding would not only be strictly in keeping with well-established principles of law as announced in numerous decisions of this court, some of which are cited in the majority opinion, but at the same time it would serve in the future as a deterrent against the bringing of actions possessing no more merit in fact or in law than is found in the instant case.
Wahnek, J., concurs in this opinion.