Welsh v. . Wilson
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Gleason v. Hillcrest Golf Course, Inc. (City of New York Municipal Court 1933)
- Rose v. Abeel Bros. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927)
- Walker v. Smith (Ala. 1917)
- Hass v. Booth (Mich. 1914)
- Ryan v. Foster (Iowa 1908)
- McHarge v. M. M. Newcomer & Co. (Tenn. 1906)
- Sanford v. White (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1904)
- Kelly v. Otterstedt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Kelly v. Otterstedt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1903)
- Linehen v. Western Electric Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Maltbie v. Bolting (Superior Court of New York 1893)
- Labriola v. Langone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1970)
- Rabinowitz v. 2171 Food Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- Simpson v. Adkins (Ill. 1944)
- Rief v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. (Idaho 1941)
- O'Neill v. City of Port Jervis (N.Y. 1930)
- Hatfield v. . Straus (N.Y. 1907)
- Kurlanchick v. Sklamberg (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
- Murphy v. . Leggett (N.Y. 1900)
- Tompkins v. North Hudson Railway Co. (N.J. 1899)
- Tinker v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co. (N.Y. 1898)
- Linehen v. Western Electric Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- O'Reilly v. Long Island Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1896)
- Goff v. Akers (Superior Court of New York 1893)
- Vallo v. United States Express Co. (Pa. 1892)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant, desiring to remové two large cases of merchandise from his store in the city of Hew York, placed a pair of skids from a truck across the sidewalk to the steps of the store. It would have taken not more than five minutes to remove the cases from the store to the truck. After the skids had been there about two minutes, the plaintiff came along the sidewalk, and seeing the skids in her pathway turned toward the store and attempted to pass around the skids, and in doing so she slipped upon the steps and was injured; and then she brought this action to recover damages.
*257 The defendant had the right to place the skids across the sidewalk temporarily for the purpose of removing the cases of merchandise. Every one doing business along a street, in a populous city, must have such a right, to be exercised in a reasonable manner, so as not to unnecessarily incumber and obstruct the sidewalk. When the plaintiff found this obstruction in her pathway, she had the option, either to wait a couple of minutes, or to cross the street and pass upon the other sidewalk, or to pass around the truck in the street, or to take the way she selected. The defendant was under no obligation to furnish her a safe passage-way around the obstruction. (People v. Cunningham, 1 Denio, 524, 530; Commonwealth v. Passmore, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 219; People v. Horton, 64 N. Y. 610.)
The defendant owed the plaintiff no duty to see that its steps were in an absolutely safe condition for travel, and it does not appear that they were dangerous under such circumstances as to charge him with carelessness, even if that would have been sufficient to impose any liability upon him in this case.
We think the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.