Hyperlawhypertext legal database Hough v. City of New York 116 N.Y.S. 658

← Cases

Hough v. City of New York

116 N.Y.S. 658 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1909-05-07 English

Contents

Majority

p. 658
HOUGH v. CITY OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
May 7, 1909.)

Headnote

Municipal Corporations (§■ 785[1] )—Injuries to Pedestrian.
A pedestrian is not entitled to recover for injuries caused by falling into a hole in a sidewalk, where the dimensions of the hole were two by three feet at its edges and sloping to a depth of about two inches.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1636, 1637; Dec. Dig. § 785.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
p. 659
Action by Jennie Hough against the City of New York. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and DAYTON and GOFF, JJ.
Francis K. Pendleton (Theodore Connoly and Thomas F. Noonan, of counsel), for appellant.
John F. Cowan, for respondent.

Plaintiff sued to recover for injuries occasioned by falling into a hole in a sidewalk. The jury gave'her a verdict for $300. The city appeals.

Without passing upon certain of plaintiff’s testimony, which was quite effectively overcome by the defendant, or upon the amount qf damages awarded, this judgment must be reversed. The dimensions of the hole were about two by three feet at its edges and sloping to a depth of about two inches. On the record here the city is entitled to the application of the. rule laid down in Hamilton v. City of Buffalo, 173 N. Y. 72 , 65 N. E. 944 , and Gastel v. City of New York, 194 N. Y. 15 , 86 N. E. 833 .

Judgment reversed, and complaint dismissed, with costs to appellant in this court and in the court below.

Cases cited