TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fitzgerald v. Goldstein

Julia Fitzgerald v. Abraham Goldstein

Fitzgerald v. Goldstein, 56 Misc. 677 (1907)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 15, 1907
Judges
Guy
Citations
56 Misc. 677107 N.Y.S. 614
Headnotes
Negligence — Acts or omissions constituting negligence — Use of land, buildings, etc.— Knowledge of defect or danger. In order to charge an owner with negligence for not making repairs he must have notice, either express or implied, of the existence of the defective condition and a reasonable time thereafter to repair it. In an action against, the owner of adjoining premises for injuries caused by leakage from defective water pipes, where it appears that the defect was first known to the owner on Friday and the pipes were repaired the following Monday; that the defendant had recently purchased his premises without knowledge or notice of any defect and that the defect was not obvious but only found after its existence was known by ripping up flooring and frequent search, a judgment for the plaintiff should be reversed.
Summary
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, first district, borough of Manhattan.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Guy

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Guy, J.

‘ Appeal from judgment, rendered by-the court, without a jury, in favor of plaintiff.

The action is brought by plaintiff against the defendant, as owner of a building adjoining the premises occupied by the'plaintiff, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in carelessly and negligently permitting the Groton water pipes in defendant’s building “ to become and be in a worn state and condition,” causing an overflow upon plaintiff’s premises and resultant damage to plaintiff’s property. The evidence shows that defendant became the owner of said adjoining premises by purchase on January 27, 1907; and the negligence, if any, of the defendant must have arisen between that date and April 23, 1907, on which date plaintiff shows that the defective pipes were repaired and the flow of water onto plaintiff’s premises ceased.

The evidence fully establishes the fact that the Groton water pipes on defendant’s premises were in a defective condition, and that the damage to plaintiff’s property was caused by an overflow from said defective water pipes. But plaintiff’s agent testifies that the first time defendant’s attention was called to such overflow was on Friday preceding the Monday when the repairs were made which stopped the overflow.

,ITe also testifies that the entire damage suffered by the plaintiff occurred before such notification to the defendant.

The defendant testifies that he frequently visited his premises and the cellar thereof before such notification, and never noticed any overflow or dampness on his premises, and had no knowledge of the overflow until he was notified by the plaintiff. Defendant’s testimony is supplemented by the testimony of defendant’s witness Peltyn, who testified that he had frequently visited defendant’s premises during the period in question and never noticed any dampness; that he had used the toilets and sinks in defendant’s premises and never noticed any back water in them.

Plaintiff’s witness Lee also testified to the same effect.

There is no evidence that the building was improperly constructed and .that defendant purchased the building with knowledge of such defects. On the contrary, the defects were *679 concealed and were such as would not have become known to the plaintiff through the exercise of ordinary care. It appears that it was only after the ripping up of the flooring by the plaintiff, after frequent visits to defendant’s premises, that the defects were discovered.

The rule is well established that, in order to charge an owner with negligence in failing to make repairs, he must have notice, either express or implied, of the existence of the alleged defective conditions, and a reasonable time after such notice to remedy the same. Spencer v. McManus, 82 Hun, 318 ; Becker v. Bullowa, 36 Misc. Rep. 525 ; Slater v. Mersereau, 64 N. Y. 139 .

The evidence of plaintiff’s witness clearly establishes that there was no unreasonable delay in the making of repairs after notice was given to the defendant, there being only one-half day (Saturday) intervening between the time of such notice and the beginning of the repair work by the plaintiff, which was continued and completed by the defendant.

It is sought by the plaintiff to invoke the doctrine res ipsa loquitur in this case. This doctrine would not apply, inasmuch as the cause of the accident is fully explained. The only question to be determined is whether the cause of damage was due to the negligence of the defendant in failing to make repairs within a reasonable time after actual or constructive notice thereof.

In my opinion, the plaintiff has failed utterly to prove negligence on the part of the defendant, and the trial justice erred in rendering judgment in plaintiff’s favor.

It is unnecessary to consider the exceptions taken by defendant as to the admission of evidence.

For the reasons above stated, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Gildeesleeve and Bbuce, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

How later courts describe this case

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

1954: 11957: 11972: 119542026peak 1954 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Segal v. Bloom Brothers Co.82 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. 1957)
  2. Rindler & Weiler, Inc. v. Blockton Realty Corp.205 Misc. 355 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1954)
  3. Bassett v. Rybak200 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. 1972)

Most recent

  1. Bassett v. Rybak200 N.W.2d 399 (Minn. 1972)
  2. Segal v. Bloom Brothers Co.82 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. 1957)
  3. Rindler & Weiler, Inc. v. Blockton Realty Corp.205 Misc. 355 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1954)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Spencer v. McManus, 31 N.Y.S. 185 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1894) 6

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