From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 1939
258 App. Div. 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Opinion

December 27, 1939.

Present — Sears, P.J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.


Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence does not show that the basket over which plaintiff tripped was placed in the aisle by an employee of defendant. The basket was not in the aisle long enough to charge the defendant with notice thereof. The aisles in defendant's store were not so narrow as to be dangerous upon use by customers and plaintiff's fall was not caused by the narrowness of such aisles. It was not shown that defendant was negligent. ( Greene v. Sibley, Lindsay Curr Co., 257 N.Y. 190.) All concur. (The judgment dismisses the complaint in a negligence action.)


Summaries of

Carroll v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 1939
258 App. Div. 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)
Case details for

Carroll v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Case Details

Full title:LUCY CARROLL, Appellant, v. GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 27, 1939

Citations

258 App. Div. 937 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Citing Cases

Safran v. Man-Dell Stores, Inc.

Nobody observed or viewed the accident". The difficulty here, then, is that the trial court did not instruct…

Montgomery Ward Co. v. Windham

The appellee, in order to make a prima facie case, had the burden of proving either that an employee of…