Hyperlawhypertext legal database McDermott v. City of Buffalo 138 N.Y.S. 1127

← Cases

McDermott v. City of Buffalo

138 N.Y.S. 1127 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1912-11-13 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — FOOTE, J.

Contents
p. 1127
McDERMOTT v. CITY OF BUFFALO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
November 13, 1912.)

Headnote

Appeal from Trial Term, Erie County. Action by Julia Mc-Dermott against the City of Buffalo. From a judgment for defendant, and a denial of a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Robert W. Farrington, of Buffalo, for appellant.
Clark H. Hammond, of Buffalo, for respondent.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appel-. lant to abide event. Held, that the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law, and that the evidence was sufficient to present a question of fact in that regard as well as upon the question of defendant’s negligence.

(dissenting). There was not sufficient evidence of defendant’s negligence to entitle plaintiff to have that question left to the jury. The weather conditions prior to the day of the accident were not shown. The uneven condition of the icy surface of the walk was not shown to have been due to neglect. It may have been common to all or many of the walks in the city at that time, because of weather conditions and in spite of due diligence to keep them clean. Rogers v. City of Rome, 96 App. Div. 427 , 89 N. Y. Supp. 130 ; Hatch v. City of Elmira, 142 App. Div. 176 , 126 N. Y. Supp. 863 ; Harrington v. City of Buffalo, 121 N. Y. 147 , 24 N.

Cases cited