Swift v. City of New York — 270 N.Y. 162

Majority

p. 162

Doris Swift, an Infant, by Sarah Swift, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. The City of New York et al., Defendants, and Bronx Water Works Corporation, Appellant.

(Argued January 23, 1936;

decided March 3, 1936.)

p. 163

Robert G. Shelter and Desmond T. Barry for appellant.

The appellant violated no duty and no negligence was established and the motions to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. (McDonald v. DegnonMcLean Co., 140 App. Div. 411 ; 205 N. Y. 602 ; Johnson v. City of New York, 208 N. Y. 77 ; Mendelowitz v. Neisner, 258 N. Y. 181 ; Walsh v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 301 ; Hockstein v. Congregation Talmud Torah, 144 Misc. Rep. 207 ; Maginnis v. City of Brooklyn, 16 N. Y. St. Repr. 760 ; 126 N. Y. 644 ; Powers v. Creem, 22 App. Div. 480 ;

p. 164

Kowalchick v. Reshin, 146 Misc. Rep. 770 ; Andrews v. City of Elmira, 128 App. Div. 699 ; Mackie v. Central Ry., 54 Iowa, 540 ; Kimball v. Carter, 95 Va. 77 ; Di Caprio v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 231 N. Y. 94 ; Olsen v. Fennia Realty Co., 246 N. Y. 641 .)

Myron Wisoff and William S. Butler for respondents.

The conditions at the scene of the accident constituted a nuisance as well as negligence. In creating and maintaining them unnecessarily, appellant violated a common law and statutory duty to the infant plaintiff. (Rogers v. City, 101 App. Div. 352 ; 186 N. Y. 595 ; Fritz v. Fried-land, 209 App. Div. 889 ; 239 N. Y. 580 ; Glenn v. Oakland Contracting Co., 257 N. Y. 497 ; Tuomey v. O’Reilly, 142 N. Y. 678 ; Lee v. Van Buren, 190 App. Div. 742 ; Garder v. Christopher, 124 Mo. 347 ; Vallo v. U. S. Express, 147 Penn. St. 404 ; Kane v. Simons, 149 App. Div. 50 ; Hine v. Aird-Don Co., 232 App. Div. 359 ; Brusso v. City of Buffalo, 90 N. Y. 679 ; Blakeslee v. City of Geneva, 61 App. Div. 42 ; Giglio v. N. Y. Tel. Co., 238 App. Div. 503 ; Carlock v. Westchester Lighting Co., 268 N. Y. 345 ; Racine v. Morris, 201 N. Y. 240 ; Schumer v. Caplin, 241 N. Y. 346 ; Storrs v. City, 17 N. Y. 104 ; Bullock v. City, 99 N. Y. 654 ; Murnane v. Third Ave. Ry. Co., 172 N. Y. Supp. 188 .) Appellant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The issue was for the jury. (Ehrgott v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 264 ; Martin v. Herzog, 228 N. Y. 164 ; Graves v. Rudman, 235 App. Div. 380 ; 260 N. Y. 628 ; Niagara Ferry & T. Co. v. Eagle S. & B. D. Ins. Co., 229 App. Div. 433 ; Hirschberg v. Bertal Textile Co., 238 App. Div. 338 ; Fritsch v. N. Y. & Queens Co. Ry. Co., 93 App. Div. 554 ; Gillespie v. City of Newburgh, 54 N. Y. 468 ; Kiernan v. Mayor, 14 App. Div. 156 ; Hewett v. Town of Thurman, 41 App. Div. 6 ; Porcella v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn., 50 App. Div. 158 ; McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 247 N. Y. 340 ; Erie R. R. Co. v. International Ry. Co., 209 App. Div. 380 ; 239 N. Y. 598 ; Moore v. Gadsen, 87 N. Y. 84 .)

There is no evidence that defendant was chargeable with notice of special danger to children from existing conditions. (Johnson v. City of New York, 208 N. Y. 77 ; McDonald v. Degnon-McLean Cont. Co., 124 App. Div. 824 ; affd., 205 N. Y. 502 .) The ordinance was intended for the protection of persons traveling on the highway in the usual manner, and even, if applicable to the facts in this case, its violation is not shown to have been the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. No causal connection is shown.

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur. Judgments reversed, etc.

Cases cited

McDonald v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co. 140 App. Div. 411 N.Y. App. Div. 1910-11-04 p. 163
McDonald v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co. 205 N. Y. 602 N.Y. 1912-05-21 p. 163
Johnson v. City of New York 208 N. Y. 77 N.Y. 1913-04-04 p. 163, p. 164
Mendelowitz v. Neisner 258 N. Y. 181 N.Y. 1932-01-05 p. 163
Walsh v. Fitchburg Railroad 145 N. Y. 301 N.Y. 1895-03-12 p. 163
Powers v. Creem 22 App. Div. 480 N.Y. App. Div. 1897-11-30 p. 163
Andrews v. City of Elmira 128 App. Div. 699 N.Y. App. Div. 1908-11-11 p. 164
DiCaprio v. New York Central Railroad 231 N. Y. 94 N.Y. 1921-04-19 p. 164
Olsen v. Fennia Realty Co. 246 N. Y. 641 N.Y. 1927-12-13 p. 164
Rogers v. City of Binghamton 101 App. Div. 352 N.Y. App. Div. 1905-01-04 p. 164
Reinheimer v. Cunningham 186 N. Y. 595 N.Y. 1906-12-04 p. 164
Fritz v. Friedland 239 N. Y. 580 N.Y. 1924-12-09 p. 164
Glenn v. Oakdale Contracting Co. 257 N. Y. 497 N.Y. 1931-11-24 p. 164
Toumey v. O'Reilly, Skelly & Fogarty Co. 142 N. Y. 678 N.Y. 1894-06-05 p. 164
Brusso v. City of Buffalo 90 N. Y. 679 N.Y. 1882-12-12 p. 164
Carlock v. Westchester Lighting Co. 268 N. Y. 345 N.Y. 1935-07-11 p. 164
Racine v. Morris 201 N. Y. 240 N.Y. 1911-03-21 p. 164
Schumer v. Caplin 241 N. Y. 346 N.Y. 1925-12-01 p. 164
Storrs v. City of Utica 17 N. Y. 104 N.Y. p. 164
Bullock v. Mayor of New York 99 N. Y. 654 N.Y. 1885-06-09 p. 164
Ehrgott v. Mayor 96 N. Y. 264 N.Y. 1884-06-10 p. 164
Martin v. Herzog 228 N. Y. 164 N.Y. 1920-02-24 p. 164
Stakel v. City of Batavia 260 N. Y. 628 N.Y. 1932-11-22 p. 164
Gillespie v. City of Newburgh 54 N. Y. 468 N.Y. Comm'n App. p. 164
Hewett v. Town of Thurman 41 App. Div. 6 N.Y. App. Div. 1899-05-03 p. 164
McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls 247 N. Y. 340 N.Y. 1928-02-14 p. 164
Moore v. Gadsden 87 N. Y. 84 N.Y. 1881-11-22 p. 164
Avery v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co. 205 N. Y. 502 N.Y. 1912-06-04 p. 164