Higginson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Higginson v. City of New York

181 A.D. 367, 168 N.Y.S. 866, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4012

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 1918

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 A.D. 367 (Higginson 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

Higginson v. City of New York, 181 A.D. 367, 168 N.Y.S. 866, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The verdict for the plaintiffs followed a charge which was quite as favorable to the city -as the facts justified. The escape of water from this hydrant was at such pressure and volume that it covered an area of 14,000 square feet to a considerable depth, so that it came above the lower sills of the warehouse windows. The hydrant was found broken far below the ground, where it was not subject to surface shocks. There was no evidence as to the nature of this break, whether an old fracture, or of recent appearance. The broken hydrant — itself the chief evidence of the true cause of the injury — was taken to the city storage yard, and after-wards broken up and disposed of for junlc..

Such a hydrant can be readily tested by pumping into it under pressure.

While a muncipality is not liable for escape of water from its mains or hydrants without evidence of negligence (Jenney v. City of Brooklyn, 120 N. Y. 164), a city, like any other defendant, having the duty of inspection and user over the apparatus causing damage, is subject to the effect of omitting to produce evidence, showing how the injury arose, or what was the difficulty on the occasion of such damage. (Gravey v. City of New York, 117 App. Div. 773.) Here the city made no explanation, although it does not show that such an explanation could not be made. This left it for the jury to say, on the expert testimony, whether defendant had absolved itself from negligence.

[369]*369The issues as to reasonable promptness in shutting off the water, in view of its dangerous and threatening flood, were properly left to the jury, and their finding against the city was a fair conclusion from all the evidence.

The judgment and order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam:

The verdict for the plaintiffs followed a charge which was quite as favorable to the city -as the facts justified. The escape of water from this hydrant was at such pressure and volume that it covered an area of 14,000 square feet to a considerable depth, so that it came above the lower sills of the warehouse windows. The hydrant was found broken far below the ground, where it was not subject to surface shocks. There was no evidence as to the nature of this break, whether an old fracture, or of recent appearance. The broken hydrant — itself the chief evidence of the true cause of the injury — was taken to the city storage yard, and after-wards broken up and disposed of for junlc..

Such a hydrant can be readily tested by pumping into it under pressure.

While a muncipality is not liable for escape of water from its mains or hydrants without evidence of negligence (Jenney v. City of Brooklyn, 120 N. Y. 164), a city, like any other defendant, having the duty of inspection and user over the apparatus causing damage, is subject to the effect of omitting to produce evidence, showing how the injury arose, or what was the difficulty on the occasion of such damage. (Gravey v. City of New York, 117 App. Div. 773.) Here the city made no explanation, although it does not show that such an explanation could not be made. This left it for the jury to say, on the expert testimony, whether defendant had absolved itself from negligence.

[369]*369The issues as to reasonable promptness in shutting off the water, in view of its dangerous and threatening flood, were properly left to the jury, and their finding against the city was a fair conclusion from all the evidence.

The judgment and order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D. 367, 168 N.Y.S. 866, 1918 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higginson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack