Hyperlawhypertext legal database Greenfield v. Doepfner 97 N.Y.S. 1043

← Cases

Greenfield v. Doepfner

97 N.Y.S. 1043 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1906-03-02 English

Delivered by SCOTT, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 1043
GREENFIELD v. DOEPFNER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 2, 1906.)

Headnote

Negligence—Contributory Negligence—Question fob Juey.
Though a hall and stairway were insufficiently lighted, one using the stairway was not, as a matter of law, negligent in merely steadying herself against the bannister, without actually grasping it.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.
Action by Frederika Greenfield against Otto Doepfner. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GlFGERICH and GREFNBAUM, JJ.
Arthur S. 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 App. Div. 135 , 59 N. Y. Supp. 385 ), 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. All concur.

Cases cited