From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Higgins v. Ruppert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 28, 1908
124 App. Div. 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)

Opinion

February 28, 1908.

Foley Martin, for the appellant.

Lewis C. Grover, for the respondent.


The plaintiff was at the desk in the defendant's store paying for some goods he was purchasing when a bundle of steel rods about ten feet long which was standing on end in the store against the edge or jamb of the door, and was of the merchandise there, fell over on his foot. There was evidence that the defendant was at the same time carrying out of the store to his wagon heavy iron sheets and that the jar from one of them on the sidewalk caused the bundle of rods to fall over. Be this as it may, the non-suit at the close of the plaintiff's evidence was error. The mere fall of the bundle sufficed to make out a case for the plaintiff for the jury. The maxim that the thing speaks for itself applied. It is a fair inference that the bundle would not have fallen if carefully placed. One who invites the public to his place of business is under the duty of reasonable care to make his place safe to those who come ( Davis v. Ferris, 29 App. Div. 623; Schnizer v. Phillips, 108 id. 17; Dutton v. Greenwood Cemetery Co., 80 id. 352).

The judgment should be reversed.

JENKS, HOOKER, RICH and MILLER, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.


Summaries of

Higgins v. Ruppert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 28, 1908
124 App. Div. 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
Case details for

Higgins v. Ruppert

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES HIGGINS, Appellant, v . JOSEPH RUPPERT, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 28, 1908

Citations

124 App. Div. 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
108 N.Y.S. 919

Citing Cases

Perito v. Sunrise Supermarket

We are of the opinion that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable to the situation at bar ( Robinson v.…

Murphy v. City of New York

In that situation, the doctrine was held applicable only because: (a) defendant had had painters working in…