Legal Opinion

Venia v. Bartel

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided January 23, 1958PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

A timber “chocking block ” 12 inches wide, 12 inches high and 3 feet long, used in connection with a service station grease pit, over which “block” plaintiff fell while walking on defendant’s premises was a condition so obvious that it should have been observed by plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable care (Hanstick v. Bohack Co., 279 N. Y. 654).

The fact that the 1 ‘ block ’ ’ was not in its accustomed place at or near the grease pit at the time of the occurrence does not avail plaintiff. The record discloses that plaintiff was injured at 12:00 m. on a clear, sunny day and he was under a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Robinson v. C. & J. Piskosh, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  2. Hanstick v. H.C. Bohack Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1938

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Luftig v. SteinhornAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
  2. Sparks v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API