TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Little v. Wirth

Little v. Wirth, 6 Misc. 301 (1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
The Superior Court of New York City · State Trial Courts
Decided
December 15, 1893
Citations
6 Misc. 30158 N.Y. St. Rep. 295
Headnotes
The owner of a tenement is not liable to a tenant for injuries sustained by slipping upon ice on the walk or stoop. The remedy, if any, is against the municipality for neglect.
Summary
Appeal from judgment entered upon decision sustaining .demurrer to the complaint. The following is the opinion of the court below: “McAdam, J. Applying the maxim ‘ causa próxima nonremota spectatur] the plaintiff is without a cause of action against the defendant, unless the latter, as owner of a tenement, is liable to the plaintiff as her tenant because she slipped upon the ice on the walk or stoop of her house, and there is no such liability. The authorities are uniform that there is no duty on the part of an owner to a tenant, or the public, to remove from the steps or walk the ice and snow which naturally accumulates thereon. Woods v. Cotton Co., 134 Mass. 357; Watkins v. Goodall, 138 id. 533 ; Purcell v. English, 86 Ind. 34; 44 Am. Rep. 255 ; Shindelbeck v. Moon, 32 Ohio St. 264; 30 Am. Rep. 584. . And in our state, see Fuchs v. Schmidt, 8 Daly, 317; Moore v. Gadsden, 93 N. Y. 12; 87 id. 84; Wenzlick v. McCotter, Id. 122; City v. Campbell, 123 id. 405. If the plaintiff has any remedy she must seek it from the municipality for neglect. The demurrer must be sustained and judgment directed in favor of the defendant, with costs.”

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment appealed from was entered in due conformity with the order sustaining the demurrer, and the notice of appeal does not ask for a review of the order. But independently of that the judgment is right upon the merits, *302 and should be affirmed upon the opinion rendered by the learned judge below.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Reardon v. Shimelman128 A. 705 (Conn. 1925)

Most recent

  1. Reardon v. Shimelman128 A. 705 (Conn. 1925)

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