Court Opinion

ID: 9727055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:18:34.796954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:33.186673
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed February 2, 1960:
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). Defendant Gimbel Brothers, Inc., submits that we did not decide the questions raised by Part II of Gimbel Brothers’ initial brief. In substance Part II presents these contentions:
A. The place where plaintiff fell was not a place of employment of the defendant Gimbel Brothers.
*493bB. Gimbel Brothers had no control or responsibility under a lease as to the area on which plaintiff fell.
The first paragraph of our opinion summarized the decision of the trial court upon the issues which Gimbel Brothers now presents. However, defendant concludes that we did not adopt as our own such facts and conclusions of the trial court and, therefore, there is room for argument upon them now. We do now adopt the facts as so summarized.
On the record made in the trial we consider that the trial court’s determination of facts and applicable law was correct upon the issues raised by defendant’s Part II.
On the record made in the trial the sidewalk is shown to be constructed on private property to serve Gimbel’s customers in passing between the store and the parking lot provided for them. The walk is a place of employment in so far as it concerns Gimbel Brothers. If there is any uncertainty from the record about the walk being a part of this demised premises, at least the record makes it certain that the walk adjoins the demised premises. Gimbel’s lease specifies that Gimbel “shall remove ice and snow from all sidewalks adjoining the demised premises.”
On this record we find no reason to modify our previous decision.
Motion for rehearing denied with costs.