Hyperlawhypertext legal database Beyer v. City of New York 141 A.D. 679

← Cases

Beyer v. City of New York

141 A.D. 679 Court Second Department, Decision date 1910-12-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 679
Sally Beyer, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.
Second Department,
December 30, 1910.

Headnote

Municipal corporations — negligence — injuries by overflow of sewer.
A city maintaining a sewer system is under the burden of using due care to prevent a sewer from overflowing so as to flood the.house of an adjoining owner.
. A city cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the overflow of a sewer which backed up owing to a stoppage caused by sticks used by children at play in the
p. 680
streets where .there is no evidence of defects in the construction of the sewer, or .negligence either in the omission to remove the obstruction "after notice thereof, actual or constructive, or in .the-inspection of .the sewer system.
' .Appeal by- the .defendant, The City of New York,, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, "in favor óf the plain till, rendered on the 27th day of April, .1910.
Janies E. Bell.\JW. Johnson with him on" the brief], for the appellant. .
. Alexander Rosenbaum, for the respondent..

The Obligation upon the defendant was due care do prevent the overflow of the' sewer through the house connection of plaintiff’s' premises. The.evidence, does-.not show that there was fault in the construction-of the sewer, or negligence, either in the. .omission to remove the obstruction which caused the overflow, after notice thereof, actual or constructive, Or in the inspection of the sewer system. The- evidence" indicates that the “'backing -up” óf the, sewage was caused by a stoppage- of sticks used by children when. in the street at play in the game of tip cat. It does not appear- how long this stoppage had existed, and consequently. that any reason^ able inspection, such as. could be exacted by the most rigid rule imposed upon a municipality in' charge of so great • a system, could have revealed the obstruction.- The overflow was an isolated, instance.. •

I think that the- judgment should be reversed, and- a new trial should'be ordered, costs to-'-abide the. event,-on the authority of Smith v. Mayor ( 66 N. Y. 295 ).

• Burr", Thomas, Bioh and Carr, JJ., concurred.

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

Cases cited