From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenfield v. Doepfner

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1906
49 Misc. 651 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)

Opinion

February, 1906.

Arthur F. Cosby, for appellant.

Philip I. Schick, for respondent.


The evidence that the hall and stairways were insufficiently lighted and that this was the immediate cause of the accident is quite satisfactory. We may not say, as matter of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because she only steadied herself against the bannister, without actually grasping it (Brown v. Wittner, 43 A.D. 135), nor should we, in my opinion, so find as matter of fact, in face of the opposite view taken by the trial justice. The damages were very moderate.

I favor affirmance, with costs.

GIEGERICH and GREENBAUM, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Greenfield v. Doepfner

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1906
49 Misc. 651 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
Case details for

Greenfield v. Doepfner

Case Details

Full title:FREDERIKA GREENFIELD, Respondent, v . OTTO DOEPFNER, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1906

Citations

49 Misc. 651 (N.Y. App. Term 1906)
97 N.Y.S. 1043

Citing Cases

Hill v. Raymond

In New York, under a similar statute, it has been held in Brown v. Wittner, 43 App. Div. 135, 59 N.Y.S. 385,…