It is а part of the defendant’s business to manufacture and sell or rent gas stoves. The *100 defendant maintains a wareroom for the display of such stoves adjoining its principal office in the city of Hew York. The floor of this wareroom is fourteen inches lower than the floor of the principal office and is connected therewith by a passageway in which there is a descent of two steps, each seven inches in height. The plaintiff fell and was injured on the second of these steps while making her wаy into the stoveroom, which was lighted by a chandelier sufficiently to enable her to see the first step, but, as she testifies, not sufficiently to disclose the presence of the second step. Accоrding to her testimony this second step was in shadow so that she thought she had reached the level of thе wareroom floor when she lost her footing in consequence of her failure to perceive that there was another step.
The lack of light enough to reveal this second step is the gist of the plaintiff’s cause of action. There is a conflict of evidence as to the number of burners which were lighted on the chandelier in the wareroom at the time of the accident; but whatevеr the number, it is undisputed that the chandelier furnished sufficient light to acquaint the plaintiff with the fact that there wаs a difference in the level of the floors and that she must step down in order to proceed sаfely from the principal office to the room containing the gas stoves. She saw one step of the descent in the passageway. Beyond this she says her way led into a dark shadow extending threе feet out on to the floor beyond. The defendant has been held liable for the existence of this shadow.
The underlying proposition upon which the judgment rests must be that the law imposes upon the defendant the duty of lighting equally every part of the stairway of two steps leading from one part of its premises to another. In our opinion the law does not go as far as this in the case of a merchant maintaining a wareroom for the exhibition and sale of his goods to intending customers. He is bound to exеrcise reasonable care to keep his premises safe for the ingress, progress and еgress of authorized visitors. The measure of his duty has been expressly held to be reasonable prudеnce and care.
*101
(Larkin
v. O’Neill,
Under all the circumstances attending and surrounding the accident, we think there was no evidence sufficient" to permit the jury to find that the defendаnt had failed to perform any duty which it owed to the plaintiff. A rule of law which required all stairways of whatеver length in every shop, store, hotel or building to which the public are invited to be uniformly lighted throughout their whole length would impose a burden much greater than is required for the protection of the community. It is оrdinarily sufficient to light such a stairway sufficiently to disclose its existence and character. The pеrsons who make use of it can reasonably be expected to exercise their facultiеs to some extent in order to ascertain its precise length. Where, as in the case at bar, there is an obvious descent in a passageway which the visitor is about to enter, the very fact that thе light therein is not uniform imposes upon the visitor the duty to proceed with circumspection and not move blindly on regardless of what may be ahead. A person who knowingly approaches a step beyond which is a darkened space may not assume that such space is level and proсeed without the exercise of any care to ascertain whether it is or not. If he does so, he does so at his own risk.
(Dailey
v.
Distler,
For these reasons we conclude that the judgment must he reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
Judgment reversed,' etc.