§

Schweit v. Harum Scarum Amusement Corp.

247 App. Div. 755 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
Schweit v. Harum Scarum Amusement Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Stanton v. Manhattan East Suite Hotels

    No. 01 Civ. 2394 (LTS) (FM) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2002)   Cited 10 times

    In addition to arguing simple negligence, Plaintiff asserts that the escalator in the Hotel is a special device or structure requiring Defendants to provide an attendant to supervise the escalator or to post warnings concerning its use. Courts have recognized that technology may lead to the creation of some dangerous devices for use on a business premises that require a greater degree of precaution than others. Griffen v. De Forest Manice, 166 N.Y. 188, 198-199, 59 N.E. 925, 928 (1901). If it is established that there is a special structure or device on a business premises, courts have required greater care from a business owner either because if there is some inherent danger in using the device as presented to patrons or if there are unusual circumstances surrounding the use of a device that would not otherwise be dangerous as presented.See Schubart, 168 Misc. at 435, 5 N.Y.S.2d at 208 (citing Schweit v. Harum Scarum Amusement Corp, 247 A.D. 755 (2d Dep't 1936)). The court in Griffen noted that "it is very probable that, in the advance of mechanical arts, many new appliances will be introduced into buildings, which will involve danger.

  2. Levy v. Cascades Operating Corp.

    176 Misc. 373 (N.Y. Misc. 1941)   Cited 4 times
    In Levy v. Cascades Operating Corp. (supra, p. 379) of the court's opinion, there is the following: "It is well established that when a question of negligence is involved, then, for the purpose of showing the exercise or the failure to exercise ordinary care, evidence of general custom and usage by others engaged in the same trade or business as the defendant, is competent."

    ( Rega v. Luna Amusement Co., 243 A.D. 725; Maggio v. Board of Education, 219 id. 802.) With respect to the amusement device of a revolving barrel the Appellate Division of this Department has reached the same conclusion. ( Schweit v. Harum Scarum Amusement Corp., 247 A.D. 755.) In those cases the slides and the barrel were on terra firma.

  3. Schubart v. Hotel Astor, Inc.

    168 Misc. 431 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1938)   Cited 28 times
    In Schubart, the court recognized that "the owner of an ordinary building, under ordinary circumstances, is not required to have a doorman present."

    ( Curcio v. City of New York, 275 N.Y. 20.) And if he maintains upon his property any special structure or device which may cause injury unless properly used, it is for the jury to determine whether under all the circumstances in the exercise of reasonable care he "should have furnished an attendant to supervise the use" of that structure or device. ( Schweit v. Harum Scarum Amusement Corp., 247 A.D. 755, and cases there cited.) Here, with defendant's knowledge, an unusually large crowd disported themselves in the hotel lobby or corridor while two of them sought to amuse themselves with the device of the revolving door.