From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farrell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 22, 1906
113 App. Div. 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)

Opinion

June 22, 1906.

James D. Bell [ John E. Walker and John J. Delany with him on the brief], for the appellant.

Fred Ingraham, for the respondent.


The plaintiff, driving a one-horse 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 where there was no notice, actual or constructive, that a defect existed. The court charged that there was no evidence of any defect in the sewer to cause the cave-in, and the law does not impose the burden of inspection to discover a possible defect in a highway where the same has been properly constructed. All that is required is reasonable care, and we are of opinion that the evidence failed to show a lack of such care on the part of the defendant.

The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed.

JENKS, GAYNOR and RICH, JJ., concurred; HOOKER, J., dissented.

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


Summaries of

Farrell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 22, 1906
113 App. Div. 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)
Case details for

Farrell v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:FRANK J. FARRELL, Respondent, v . THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 22, 1906

Citations

113 App. Div. 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1906)
99 N.Y.S. 947

Citing Cases

Procida v. City of New York

Where the dangerous condition of its streets did not arise from its own activities, the city will be liable…

Li Pera v. City of New York

She claimed: (1) that because of the roadway's defective broken condition the cap projected above its…