November 5, 1943.
Present — Crosby, P.J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.
Judgment reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: We think the court erred in excluding the testimony of experts called by the plaintiffs to show that the manner of laying the throw rug in the hallway in question was contrary to good and well-established practice, a practice that was known to the defendants at the time they placed the rug in said hallway. ( Levine v. Blaine Co., 273 N.Y. 386, 389.) The defendants owed the plaintiffs, their tenants, the duty of keeping said hallway in a reasonably safe condition for travel. ( Dollard v. Roberts, 130 N.Y. 269, 273; Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 282 N.Y. 442.) There was evidence from which the jury could have found that the throw rug was in a defective condition in that its edges were curled up thus affording an opportunity for a person to trip against said curled edges and fall. There was evidence that the floor covering in the hallway was smooth and hard and that the throw rug had not been treated in any way to prevent it from skidding when stepped on. On the whole case, the question of the defendants' negligence and the plaintiffs' freedom from contributory negligence was for the jury. (See Baker v. Seneca Hotel Corp., 265 App. Div. 41; Otis v. Starrett-Syracuse Corp., 259 App. Div. 970; Gitlin v. Storch, Inc., 262 N.Y. 553; Bennett v. Crescent Athletic-Hamilton Club, 270 N.Y. 456; Mayer v. Cramer, 239 App. Div. 408; De Salvo v. Stanley-Mark-Strand Corp., 281 N.Y. 333, 338.) All concur. (The judgment is for defendants in an action for damages for loss of services of, and medical attendance for, plaintiff's wife, resulting by reason of plaintiff's wife's falling, due to the negligent condition of a rug in an apartment house.)