From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Budrow v. Grand Union Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 28, 1949
275 App. Div. 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

June 28, 1949.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Clinton County.


There was proof the floor had not been oiled in three weeks, but there was also some proof from which it could be found it had been oiled four days before the accident. The facts are somewhat similar to those considered in Lendrum v. Victory Chain, Inc. ( 262 App. Div. 424). (Cf. Pratt v. American Stores Co., 262 App. Div. 931, Rothemier v. Holzheimer, 263 App. Div. 781, and Laundrie v. W.T. Grant Co., 241 App. Div. 904. ) Plaintiff's proof established a prima facie case. Judgment of nonsuit reversed, on the law and facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. Heffernan, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur; Deyo, J., dissents, in the following statement, in which Brewster, J., concurs: I dissent. The record fails to disclose that there was any unusual accumulation or in fact any accumulation of oil whatsoever at the spot where the plaintiff fell. There is also a total lack of evidence that the plaintiff slipped on any oil or that oil was the proximate cause of the accident. On such a record the trial court had no alternative but to grant the motion to dismiss. Since we may assume that the plaintiff adduced all of the evidence available to her, a new trial would serve no useful purpose.


Summaries of

Budrow v. Grand Union Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 28, 1949
275 App. Div. 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

Budrow v. Grand Union Company

Case Details

Full title:ANNA BUDROW, Appellant, v. GRAND UNION COMPANY, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 28, 1949

Citations

275 App. Div. 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)