133 N.Y.S. 273 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1912
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a dismissal of fee complaint.
The plaintiff was walking along Sixth avenue in fee city of Hew York when a broken piece of glass fell from one of fee windows of a large shop owned and occupied by defendant and injured her. She proved these facts, which were not controverted. This was sufficient to establish, prima facie, defendant’s negligence and to call upon him to explain the circumstances or otherwise establish .his freedom from liability. (Volkmar v. Manhattan R. Co., 134 N. Y. 418.) The defendant took up this burden and showed that he had employed ■ an independent contractor to putty his windows, and that one of this contractor’s workmen was near fee window when it broke, from which, it was sought to draw fee inference feat it was this workman who broke the window, although this was not expressly proven. Plaintiff then undertook to show that the breaking of the window did not result from the negligence of fee workman, but from fee defective-condition of fee window
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.