Miller v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.
Cases that cite this one
104 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Johnson (10th Cir. 1937)
- Harper v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 1996)
- Holland v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1996)
- Spagnolia v. United States (District Court, W.D. New York 1984)
- Nevoso v. Putter-Fine Building Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1963)
- Pignatelli v. Gimbel Bros. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1955)
- Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)
- Englehardt v. Philipps (Ohio 1939)
- Shumaker v. Charada Investment Co. (Wash. 1935)
- LoSquadro v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brooklyn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Scott v. United States (District Court, N.D. New York 1957)
- Rowland v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Nussbaum v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Hackbarth v. McDonalds Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Fuller v. Powers Funeral Home (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Hess v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1987)
- Van Stry v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Parker Food Stores, Inc. v. Pierce (Tex. App. 1964)
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Criner (Okla. 1963)
- McVeigh v. McCullough (R.I. 1963)
- Boccaccino v. Our Lady of Pity Roman Catholic Church (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1963)
- Lubin v. Goldblatt Bros., Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 1962)
- Lindberg v. State (Ill. Ct. Cl. 1954)
- Dudley v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (Wyo. 1948)
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Lamberson (9th Cir. 1944)
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 plaintiff slipped and fell as she was about to enter the defendant’s department store through a revolving door. She has recovered judgment for the consequent injuries. A short entranceway led from the street to the revolving door. The floor of Tennessee marble slanted downward. On that day there was a heavy rainfall, the floor was wet and there was some mud in a corner of the revolving door.
The cause of plaintiff’s fall is not shown by any direct evidence. It does not appear that the plaintiff slipped upon the mud at the door or that the movement of the door was impeded. We may assume that rain water may make the smooth sloping floor somewhat more slippery than if the floor were dry. None the less it does not appear that the floor even when wet was dangerous. The owner of a store must take reasonable care that his customers shall not be exposed to danger of injury through conditions in the store or at the entrance which he invites the public to use. He cannot prevent some water and mud being brought into an entranceway on a rainy day and he is not responsible for injuries caused thereby unless it is shown that the construction of the store is inherently dangerous or that he failed to use care to remedy conditions which had become dangerous, after *109 actual or constructive notice of such conditions. That has not been shown here.
The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.
Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Crouch, JJ., concur; Hubbs, J., not sitting. Judgments reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.