Hyperlawhypertext legal database Fitzgerald v. Degnon Contracting Co. 126 A.D. 363

← Cases

Fitzgerald v. Degnon Contracting Co.

126 A.D. 363 Court Second Department, Decision date 1908-05-08 English

Delivered by Gaynor, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 363
Hannah Fitzgerald, Respondent, v. Degnon Contracting Company, Appellant.
Second Department,
May 8, 1908.

Headnote

Negligence — injury on sidewalk under repair.
A contractor restoring the surface of a street after the completion of a tunnel is engaged in a lawful work and not liable for injuries to a pedestrian who in the day time fell into a depression left by the temporary removal of a flagstone for the purpose of relaying it.
The condition of the street being obvious it was the duty of the pedestrian to take care.
Appeal by the defendant, the Degnon Contracting Company, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of the plaintiff.
p. 364
Allan E. Brosmith, for the appellant.
James M. Seaman, for the respondent.

The tunnel recently built under the East River from the borough of Queens to the borough of Manhattan ran under Fourth street, in the former borough. The defendant was restoring the surface of the street after the tunnel was completed. The street was dug up and littered. Teams had to go on the sidewalk on account of the broken and littered condition of the roadway. The defendant was engaged under contract with the tunnel company in restoring the street. It was taking up the flag sidewalk and relaying it. The plaintiff came along where the workmen had taken a flag up and were putting down a foundation of cinders under it to relay it. She walked from the adjoining flag into the depression caused by the temporary removal of the flag and fell. It was in the daytime. • Judgment should have been given for the defendant. The condition of the street was obvious, and it was for her to take care (Whalen v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 151 N. Y. 70 ; Walsh v. Central N. Y. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 id. 163 ). The defendants were engaged in a necessary and lawful work and were guilty of no negligence.

The judgment should be reversed.

Jenks, Hookeb, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cases cited