Burns v. City of Yonkers

New York Supreme Court

Burns v. City of Yonkers

34 N.Y.S. 1135, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 866

DecidedJuly 26, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 1135 (Burns v. City of Yonkers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. City of Yonkers, 34 N.Y.S. 1135, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 866 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinions

PRATT, J.

We do not find that the facts on the present trial vary in any important particular from those shown on the previous trial, discussed 83 Hun, 211, 31 N. Y. Supp. 757. That case determined that the plaintiff had a right to go to" the jury on the question of defendant’s negligence. The verdict establishes the liabiltiy of the city. It is entirely clear that the accident resulted from the absence of a fence between the traveled road and the declivity down which the plaintiff went. In the light of the event, it is easy to see that a fence should have been provided. We cannot say the jury are wrong in finding that the necessity of a fence should have been apparent before the accident. There were no errors in the admission of evidence, or in the charge, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PRATT, J.

We do not find that the facts on the present trial vary in any important particular from those shown on the previous trial, discussed 83 Hun, 211, 31 N. Y. Supp. 757. That case determined that the plaintiff had a right to go to" the jury on the question of defendant’s negligence. The verdict establishes the liabiltiy of the city. It is entirely clear that the accident resulted from the absence of a fence between the traveled road and the declivity down which the plaintiff went. In the light of the event, it is easy to see that a fence should have been provided. We cannot say the jury are wrong in finding that the necessity of a fence should have been apparent before the accident. There were no errors in the admission of evidence, or in the charge, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 1135, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 605, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-city-of-yonkers-nysupct-1895.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack