King v. Rotterdam Shopping Center, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Reynolds, J. (dissenting).
The majority of this court has found “ arguable issues which preclude summary judgment.” I cannot agree. Even assuming the infant plaintiff were an invitee, the defendants’ duty was at most to use reasonable care in keeping their premises in a reasonably safe condition. This test the defendants have met. The injury was not due to any defect in the structure of the wall, i.e., no loose bricks or stones fell on him nor did any portion of the wall give way and thus cause him to topple (Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp., 296 N. Y. 154). For was the injury due to the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Collentine v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Carbone v. MacKchil Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1947
- Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Kayser v. LindellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- State Ex Rel. Kansas City v. EllisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.