TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hordes v. Kessner

Hordes v. Kessner, 159 N.Y.S. 891 (1916)
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
June 26, 1916
Citations
159 N.Y.S. 8911916 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1417
Headnotes
Negligence 134(B)—Evidence—Sufficiency. Evidence held insufficient to show defendant’s negligence as to an open cellar door in front of her store, where plaintiff fell through it after noticing it when entering the store and being warned by defendant upon leaving. [Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig, §$ 267, 268, 271; Dec. Dig. <S=»13á(5).] <§c^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Summary
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District. Action by Rosie Hordes against Ida Kessner. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

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.

Plaintiff has recovered a judgment for personal injuries alleged to'have been received under the following circumstances as detailed by her. She visited defendant’s store for the purpose of purchasing a pair of shoes for her little girl. The girl tried on a pair which did not suit, and plaintiff stepped out the store door to examine some shoes in the show window. As she walked along, a door opening into a cellar was open, and she fell and received the injuries complained of. The defendant testified that there were two doors covering *892 the opening into the cellar, and that just as the plaintiff was about to enter the store some person had gone into the cellar. The defendant, who kept the store and waited upon customers, stood outside and near the door, guarding the entrance to the cellar, and told plaintiff she would wait on her as soon as the man came out of the cellar. After waiting awhile she closed one door and went into the store to attend to plaintiff. She further testifies that, as the plaintiff went out the store door to look at the shoes in the store window, she cautioned plaintiff to look out for the opened cellar door, as the man was still down there. That she gave the plaintiff such warning is corroborated by a disinterested witness, who heard it, and is not disputed by plaintiff. The day was bright and sunny, and the door in full view of plaintiff. She saw the open cellar doors when she entered the store, and was warned of the danger when she attempted to examine the goods in the window. Under the undisputed testimony no negligence can be attributed to the defendant.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to the appellant to abide the event.

How later courts describe this case

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

1963: 119632026peak 1963 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Western Auto Supply Company v. Campbell373 S.W.2d 735 (Tex. 1963)

Most recent

  1. Western Auto Supply Company v. Campbell373 S.W.2d 735 (Tex. 1963)

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