Majority
Headnote
Highways—Liability for Defects—Evidence.By section 16 of the highway law (chapter 568 of the Laws of 1890), it is provided that “every town shall be liable for all damages to person or property sustained by reason of any ■defect in its highways or bridges, existing because of the neglect •of any commissioner of highways of such town.” By section 17, it is provided that if, in such a case, a judgment is recovered against a town, the commissioner shall be liable to the town for the amount of the judgment, but the judgment shall not be evidence of the negligence of the commissioner in the action against him. On the morning of August 4, 1892, the plaintiff was riding along a highway in the northwestern part of the towm of Hebron, in a two-wheeled vehicle, called a “dogcart,” drawn, by one horse. Her husband was with her, and he was driving. As they passed northwesterly over a small bridge.or culvert, the horse, just beyond the bridge, became frightened at something in the direction of some bushes on the right-hand side of the road, and jumped sideways to the left, going down a declivity on that side of the road. This operated to tip the vehicle, so that, after going about 30 feet, the plaintiff was thrown out, and was injured. For the damages by her sustained, she has here recovered, on the theory that the commissioners of highways of the town were negligent in omitting to maintain a barrier along the side of the bridge and the approaches thereto.
For some considerable distance upon either side of the bridge or ■culvert, the traveled part of the highway was substantially on a
It was not shown that any accident of this kind had ever occurred there before. A witness was permitted to testify, over the objection and exception of defendant, that at some time (the date not being given) he was driving a loaded double wagon along the curve in the road, and one of the hind wheels got off the bank. Another witness was permitted to testify that in 1885 he saw one Collins driving easterly across the bridge, and his horse fell over the bridge, and lay in the creek. It is very doubtful whether this evidence was competent. Brady v. Railroad Co., 127 N. Y. 46 , 27 N. E. 368 ; Ster v. Tuety, 45 Hun, 49 ; Thomas, Neg. 587. No fault was found here with the curve, or the width of the bridge. The plaintiff had passed the curve and the bridge before the accident happened.
Upon the facts of the case, the defendant claims that a cause of action was not made out, within the purview of the statute. To
“We think that this is a case where the town could never be able to recover against the commissioners upon the facts disclosed by the record, and that a recovery ought not to be had, and, for the same reason, no recovery should be had by the plaintiff against the town. The proof was not sufficient to charge the commissioners with personal negligence in the performance of the duties imposed upon them by law, and the motion for a nonsuit at the close of the case should have been granted.”
The Lane Case was brought under the provisions of chapter 700 of the Laws of 1881, to which the provisions of the highway law hereinbefore referred to have succeeded, with no apparent intention of making the liability of a town any more burdensome or substantially different from what it was under the act of 1881.
The plaintiff insists that the case of Wood v. Town of Gilboa, 76 Hun, 175 , 27 N. Y. Supp. 586 , affirmed, without opinion, in 146 N. Y. 383 , 42 N. E. 544 , is authority to sustain the judgment here. The facts in that case do not fully appear in the report. The injury is stated to have resulted from “falling down a steep embankment of a dugway road in the village of Gilboa.” The particulars of the situation are not stated. The degree of care required of a commissioner as to a village road may be substantially different from that required as to a country crossroad. Glasier v. Town of Hebron, 131 N. Y. 447 , 452, 30 N. E. 239 . There must be such care and conduct on the part of the commissioner as a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have exercised under the circumstances of the situation. And although, as a general rule, the necessity of barriers is a question of fact, still, as said in the Lane Case (page 519, 142 N. Y., and page 473, 37 N. E.):
“In every ease there is always a preliminary question for the court as to whether there is any evidence upon which a jury could properly find a verdict for the party producing it, and upon whom the burden of proof is imposed. If there is not, the court must direct a nonsuit or a verdict, as the case may require. Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116 , 120; Linkauf v. Lombard, 137 N. Y. 417 , 33 N. E. 472 ; Hemmens v. Nelson, 138 N. Y. 517 , 34 N. E. 342 ; Filer v. Railroad Co., 49 N. Y. 47 .”
The question is not, as suggested by the counsel for the plaintiff, whether the town was negligent in failing to erect a barrier, but whether, in that regard, there was a defect in the highway existing, because of the neglect of the commissioners of highways. Applying to the facts of this case the doctrine laid down in the Lane Case, we are of the opinion that the evidence does not sustain the verdict.
Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted; costs to abide the event. All concur.
Cases cited
- Brady v. Manhattan Railway Co. 127 N. Y. 46 p. 382
- Lane v. Town of Hancock 142 N. Y. 510 p. 383
- Glasier v. Town of Hebron 131 N. Y. 447 at 452, 30 p. 383
- Pleasants v. Fant 22 Wall. 116 at 120 p. 383
- Linkauf v. Lombard 137 N. Y. 417 p. 383
- Hemmens v. Nelson 138 N. Y. 517 p. 383
- Filer v. New York Central Railroad 49 N. Y. 47 p. 383