Opinion

Whitcher v. Board of Education

  • 233 A.D. 184
  • 251 N.Y.S. 611
  • 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11230
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Jun 30, 1931
Status
Published
Author
Hill
On the bench
Hill, Kirk
Cited by
14 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.5%

The opinion

Hill, J. (dissenting).

The plaintiff, a pupil attending school in one of defendant’s schoolhouses, has recovered a judgment for an injury received through being struck upon the head by a piece of glass which fell from a transom that broke as he, in line with other pupils, was leaving the building after being dismissed. This line first passed through double swinging doors into a small entrance hall, then through outside doors of heavy material to the street. ‘ These heavy outside doors, which were not equipped with any device to prevent slamming, closed violently as plaintiff was underneath the transom.

The defendant constructed the building. It was under a continuing duty to keep it in reasonably safe condition. (Lessin v. Board of Education, 247 N. Y. 503 .) It determined the thickness and strength of the glass used in the transom and the manner in which it was set in the frame. It permitted the outside doors to be operated without stops designed to prevent sudden closing, with resultant jar and air pressure upon the inner doors and transom. It was required to know that a violent jar or air pressure might break glass, and that injury might result to a passer. The jury may reasonably have inferred that the transom and doors were not designed or constructed to withstand the pressure of the air and jar connected with the sudden closing of the heavy outer doors, and that negligence was involved in the design, construction and operation. (Ha efeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co., 255 N. Y. 442, 448 .)

The court properly charged the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as the building had been constructed by and was within the custody and under the control of the defendant. These facts placed it in the best position to show that the happening was without its fault. This it was required to do under the facts here presented. (Plumb v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 233 N. Y. 285 ; Sandler v. Garrison, 249 id. 236.)

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Rhodes, J., concurs.

Judgment and order reversed on the law and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.