¶1I dissent. I think the case was submitted to the jury upon too narrow a ground, but even at that it seems to me there is evidence to sustain the verdict. It does not seem useful to send the case back simply on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence. There is abundant proof to show that the floor was not oiled in the usual way, but in a manner to make it unusually slippery, causing people to fall, as was shown by the evidence of actual occurrences. I vote for affirmance.
175 A.D. 964
Moore v. Mohican Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 15, 1916
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1916-11-15
Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held: that it was the law of the case as charged by the court that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the oily condition of defendant’s floors, -unless she satisfied the jury that there was a pool or unnecessary accumulation of oil at the place where she slipped differing in that respect from the general condition of the floor.
Decided 1916-11-15