Beyer v. City of New York

6 Citing cases

  1. Safransky v. City of Helena

    39 P.2d 644 (Mont. 1935)   Cited 7 times

    The evidence shows that the sewer on West Main Street was inspected by the sewer inspector on July 15, 1929, and was then operating properly and that it was the custom and rule to make two inspections in this manner of all sewer systems each year, and to make other inspections in case of complaints or discovered trouble. If inspections are made in the usual and ordinary manner, the one commonly adopted by men of ordinary care and prudence, under like circumstances, it is not negligence. ( Louisville N.A. C. Ry. Co. v. Bates, 146 Ind. 564, 45 N.E. 108, 109; Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Senske, 201 Fed. 637, 120 C.C.A. 65; Waddell v. A. Guthrie Co., 45 F.2d (10th Cir.) 977; Kinsel v. North Butte Min. Co., 44 Mont. 445, at pages 469 and 470, 120 P. 797; 4 Thompson on Negligence, sec. 3784.) Daily or monthly inspections are not required in structures like a sewer line. ( State v. Consolidated Gas Co., 85 Md. 637, 37 A. 263; Beyer v. City of New York, 141 App. Div. 679, 126 N.Y. Supp. 455; Cooper v. City of Milwaukee, 97 Wis. 458, 72 N.W. 1130; City of Indianapolis v. Ray, 52 Ind. App. 388, 97 N.E. 795.)

  2. Pet Products, Inc. v. City of Yonkers

    290 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    The plaintiff's expert concluded, inter alia, that cross bars should have been installed on catch basins to prevent large objects from entering the sewer. He also concluded that the material and debris which caused the obstruction had accumulated over a substantial period of time and would have or should have been discovered by proper routine maintenance (see, McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, supra; cf., Smith v. Mayor of N.Y., 66 N.Y. 295; Beyer v. City of New York, 141 A.D. 679). Although there is some evidence that the defendant satisfied its duty to inspect the sewer to ensure that no obstructions occurred, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant breached its duty to properly inspect and maintain its sewers. ALTMAN, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, O'BRIEN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.

  3. Sgarlata v. City of Schenectady

    77 Misc. 2d 481 (N.Y. Misc. 1974)   Cited 4 times

    Of course, liability can arise, where it is shown a municipality had actual or constructive notice, except where it is shown that the damages resulted from a dangerous condition that suddenly arose in connection with use and operation of the drains so that the municipality had no opportunity to have either actual or constructive notice. ( Watson v. City of Kingston, 114 N.Y. 88; Beyer v. City of New York, 141 App. Div. 679; Schreiber v. Mayor etc., of New York, supra.) III. CONCLUSIONS

  4. Gibson v. State of New York

    187 Misc. 931 (N.Y. Misc. 1946)   Cited 11 times

    On the occasion complained of, though ineffectual to prevent claimant's damage, the accumulation of debris on the gratings were removed therefrom within a reasonable time after the storm subsided. It does not appear that any reasonable inspection such as could be exacted by the most rigid laws imposed upon a municipality in charge could have revealed the obstructions on the gratings in time to have avoided and averted the overflow. ( Beyer v. City of New York, 141 A.D. 679.) We find therefore no negligence on the part of the defendant in the care and maintenance of the sewerage and drainage facilities in question.

  5. Stack v. City of New York

    134 Misc. 105 (N.Y. Misc. 1929)   Cited 2 times

    ( Holzhausen v. City of New York, 116 A.D. 812; Punsky v. City of New York, Nos. 1 2, 129 id. 558, 560.) To hold the city liable, there must be proof of negligence in construction or maintenance. ( Smith v. Mayor, etc., 66 N.Y. 295; Beyer v. City of New York, 141 A.D. 679; Judas v. City of New York, 55 Misc. 259.) Verdict for defendants. Exception to plaintiff.

  6. Sotel v. City of New York

    81 Misc. 344 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1913)   Cited 3 times

    In the present instance the stoppage was apparently of such sudden occurrence that a frequency of inspection required by the most rigid rule of care might not have disclosed it before the water began to back up into the plaintiffs' premises. Smith v. Mayor, 66 N.Y. 295; Weidman v. City of New York, 84 A.D. 321; affd., 176 N.Y. 586; Beyer v. City of New York, 141 A.D. 679. In the first of these cases the court, by Allen, J., said: "The defendants can only be made responsible to the plaintiff for the damage sustained by him by reason of the overflow of the sewer into his cellar and upon his premises, upon proof of some fault or neglect on their part, either in the construction of the sewer or in keeping it in proper repair. * * * It is found upon sufficient evidence that the overflow was caused by a stoppage of the sewer with sand, dirt and refuse matter washed in from the street, and that at or just before the flooding of the plaintiff's premises, there was an unusually heavy shower of rain.