Legal Opinion

Troeger v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided February 14, 1935PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Violation of an ordinance requiring the cleaning of sidewalks by abutting owners does not create a liability on the owner from injuries to a wayfarer. They are construed as creating a duty enforcible only by the municipality. (Restatement of the Law of Torts, § 288; City of Rochester v. Campbell, 123 N. Y. 405.)

The abutting owner has been said not to be liable for an injury resulting from a banana peel thrown on the sidewalk by a tenant (Frank v. Muller, 200 App. Div. 639), whereas a storekeeper was held liable where he created a similar condition (Ellis v. Friedlander, 198 App. Div, 57),

*538Here…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Rochester v. . CampbellNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Frank v. MullerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  3. Ellis v. FriedlanderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Steitz v. City of BeaconNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
  2. Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. LindnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  3. Nelson v. SchultzNew York Supreme Court · 1939
  4. McCloud v. Parish of JeffersonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1980
  5. Schuster v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1953

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API