TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Miller v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.

Ursula A. Miller, Respondent, v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., Appellant

Miller v. Gimbel Bros., 186 N.E. 410 (N.Y. 1933)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 23, 1933
Judges
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
Citations
186 N.E. 410262 N.Y. 1071933 N.Y. LEXIS 921

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff slipped and fell as she was about to enter the defendant’s department store through a revolving door. She has recovered judgment for the consequent injuries. A short entranceway led from the street to the revolving door. The floor of Tennessee marble slanted downward. On that day there was a heavy rainfall, the floor was wet and there was some mud in a corner of the revolving door.

The cause of plaintiff’s fall is not shown by any direct evidence. It does not appear that the plaintiff slipped upon the mud at the door or that the movement of the door was impeded. We may assume that rain water may make the smooth sloping floor somewhat more slippery than if the floor were dry. None the less it does not appear that the floor even when wet was dangerous. The owner of a store must take reasonable care that his customers shall not be exposed to danger of injury through conditions in the store or at the entrance which he invites the public to use. He cannot prevent some water and mud being brought into an entranceway on a rainy day and he is not responsible for injuries caused thereby unless it is shown that the construction of the store is inherently dangerous or that he failed to use care to remedy conditions which had become dangerous, after *109 actual or constructive notice of such conditions. That has not been shown here.

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Crouch, JJ., concur; Hubbs, J., not sitting. Judgments reversed, etc.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 102 cases

View all citing references →
1934: 21935: 21936: 11937: 21939: 21940: 21943: 31944: 11945: 11946: 11947: 11948: 21954: 11955: 11957: 11958: 11959: 41960: 11961: 11962: 21963: 51964: 41965: 11967: 11968: 31969: 11970: 21972: 11973: 11974: 21976: 11977: 11979: 11984: 21985: 11987: 21991: 21992: 21995: 21996: 21997: 11998: 32000: 12001: 42002: 22003: 12004: 22005: 32006: 22007: 22008: 22010: 22012: 22013: 22014: 22023: 12026: 119342026peak 1963 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harper v. United States949 F. Supp. 130 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)
  2. Holland v. United States918 F. Supp. 87 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
  3. Spagnolia v. United States598 F. Supp. 683 (W.D.N.Y. 1984)
  4. Nevoso v. Putter-Fine Building Corp.18 A.D.2d 317 (1963)
  5. Pignatelli v. Gimbel Bros.285 A.D. 625 (1955)
  6. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Johnson91 F.2d 332 (10th Cir. 1937)

Most recent

  1. Rowland v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr.2026 NY Slip Op 02861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2026)
  2. Price v. BFP Tower C Co., LLC2023 NY Slip Op 02338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
  3. Paduano v. 686 Forest Avenue, LLC119 A.D.3d 845 (2014)
  4. Nussbaum v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad994 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
  5. Osbourne v. 80-90 Maiden Lane Del, LLC112 A.D.3d 898 (2013)
  6. Kuznicki v. Beth Jacobs Teachers Seminary of America Inc.39 Misc. 3d 286 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list