From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WEIN v. F.W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1928
223 App. Div. 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

Opinion

March, 1928.


Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The undisputed facts show that plaintiff's injuries were not caused by any act or omission of defendant, but by the act of the customers in the store, in crowding about the entrance; that the condition was one that could not reasonably have been apprehended; and that defendant is not liable therefor ( Woolworth Co. v. Conboy, 170 Fed. 934; Lord v. Sherer Dry Goods Co., 205 Mass. 1; Madden v. N Y Central H.R.R.R. Co., 98 App. Div. 406.) Lazansky, P.J., Rich, Hagarty, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

WEIN v. F.W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1928
223 App. Div. 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)
Case details for

WEIN v. F.W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY

Case Details

Full title:FRANCES WEIN, Respondent, v. F.W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1928

Citations

223 App. Div. 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

Citing Cases

Glennon v. James McCreery Co.

The defendant was bound to exercise care commensurate with the dangers to be apprehended. ( Serlin v. City of…

Frein v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

The law imposes no such burden. (O'Connor v. Webber, 219 N.Y. 439; Loftus v. Union Ferry Co., 84 N.Y. 455;…