Farrell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farrell v. City of New York

113 A.D. 687, 99 N.Y.S. 947, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1515

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 113 A.D. 687 (Farrell v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farrell v. City of New York, 113 A.D. 687, 99 N.Y.S. 947, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodward, J.:

The plaintiff, driving a one-hoi'se delivery wagon on Myrtle avenue,'Flushing, was injured by his-horse falling into a hole and throwing him from the'wagon. It appears that it had been raining ■a few days prior to the accident and that the surface of the street had nothing to indicate that there- was any defect. But. when the horse reached the .point where the accident occurred the surface caved in, showing a cavity as large as a barrel. There was some evidence that there had been other cave-ins along the. sewer in this highway,.and that the ,authorities had filled them up as soon as they were discovered, and. we fail to see how the city could be charged with negligence Ayhere there, was no notice, actual or constructive, that a defect existed. The court charged that there was no evidence of any defect in the sexver to cause the cave-in, and' the law does not impose the burden of inspection to discover a possible defect in a highway Avhere the same has been properly constructed.- All that™ is' required is reasonable care, and we are of .opinion that the evidence failed to shoiv a lack of such cafe on the part of the defendant.' . -

The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed.

Jenks, Gaynor, and Rich, J J., concurred ; Hooker, J., dissented

Judgment and order reversed and 'new trial granted, costs to abide the event. *

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

Woodward, J.:

The plaintiff, driving a one-hoi'se delivery wagon on Myrtle avenue,'Flushing, was injured by his-horse falling into a hole and throwing him from the'wagon. It appears that it had been raining ■a few days prior to the accident and that the surface of the street had nothing to indicate that there- was any defect. But. when the horse reached the .point where the accident occurred the surface caved in, showing a cavity as large as a barrel. There was some evidence that there had been other cave-ins along the. sewer in this highway,.and that the ,authorities had filled them up as soon as they were discovered, and. we fail to see how the city could be charged with negligence Ayhere there, was no notice, actual or constructive, that a defect existed. The court charged that there was no evidence of any defect in the sexver to cause the cave-in, and' the law does not impose the burden of inspection to discover a possible defect in a highway Avhere the same has been properly constructed.- All that™ is' required is reasonable care, and we are of .opinion that the evidence failed to shoiv a lack of such cafe on the part of the defendant.' . -

The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed.

Jenks, Gaynor, and Rich, J J., concurred ; Hooker, J., dissented

Judgment and order reversed and 'new trial granted, costs to abide the event. *

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D. 687, 99 N.Y.S. 947, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack