Adams v. Bullock

• Decision Date: 18 November 1919
• Citation: 125 N.E. 93,227 N.Y. 208
• Parties: ADAMS v. BULLOCK.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

227 N.Y. 208

125 N.E. 93

ADAMS

v.BULLOCK.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 18, 1919.

Action by Leo Adams, an infant, by his guardian ad litem, Marcy E. Adams, against George Bullock, as receiver of the Buffalo & Lake Erie Traction Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (176 N. Y. Supp. 888) affirming by a divided court a judgment of the Trial Term entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.

Thomas R. Wheeler, of Buffalo, for appellant.

Murle L. Rowe, of Dunkirk, for respondent.

CARDOZO, J.

The defendant runs a trolley line in the city of Dunkirk, employing the overhead wire system. At one point, the road is crossed by a bridge or culvert which carries the tracks of the Nickle Plate and Pennsylvania Railroads. Pedestrians often use the bridge as a short cut between streets, and children play on it. On April 21, 1916, the plaintiff, a boy of 12 years, came across the bridge, swinging a wire about 8 feet long. In swinging it, he brought it in contact with the defendant's trolley wire, which ran beneath the structure. The side of the bridge was protected by a parapet 18 inches wide. Four feet 7 3/4 inches below the top of the parapet, the trolley wire was strung. The plaintiff was shocked and burned when the wires came together. He had a verdict at Trial Term, which has been affirmed at the Appellate Division by a divided court.

[1][2] We think the verdict cannot stand. The defendant in using an overhead trolley was in the lawful exercise of its franchise. Negligence, therefore, cannot be imputed to it because is used that system and not another. Dumphy v. Montreal, etc., Co., 1907 A. C. 454. There was, of course, a duty to adopt all reasonable precautions to minimize the resulting perils. We think there is no evidence that this duty was ignored. The trolley wire was so placed that no one standing on the bridge or even bending over the parapet could reach it. Only some extraordinary casualty, not fairly within the area of ordinary prevision, could make it a thing of danger. Reasonable care in the use of a destructive agency imports a high degree of vigilance. Nelson v. Branford L. & W. Co., 75 Conn. 548, 551, 54 Atl. 303;Braun v. Buffalo Gen. El. Co., 200 N. Y. 484, 94 N. E. 206, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1089, 140 Am. St. Rep. 645, 21 Ann. Cas. 370. But no vigilance, however alert, unless fortified by the gift of prophecy, could have predicted the point upon the route where such an accident would occur. It might with equal reason have been expected anywhere else. At any point upon the route a mischievous or thoughtless boy might touch the wire with a metal pole, or fling another wire across it. Green v. W. P. Co., 246 Pa. 340, 92 Atl. 341, L. R. A. 1915C, 151. If unable to reach it from the walk, he might stand upon a wagon or climb upon a tree. No special danger at this bridge warned the defendant that there was need of special measures of precaution. No like accident had occurred before. No custom had been disregarded. We think that ordinary caution did not involve forethought of this extraordinary peril. It has been so ruled in like circumstances by courts in other jurisdictions.Green v. W. P. Co., supra; Vannatta v. Lancaster Co., 164 Wis. 344, 159 N. W. 940;Parker v. Charlotte R. R. Co., 169 N. C. 68, 85 S. E. 33;Kempf v. S. R. Co., 82 Wash. 263, 144 Pac. 77, L. R. A. 1915C, 405;Sheffield Co. v. Morton, 161 Ala. 153, 49 South. 772. Nothing to the contrary was held in Braun v. Buffalo Gen. El. Co., 200 N. Y. 484, 94 N. E. 206, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1089, 140 Am. St. Rep. 645, 21 Ann. Cas. 370, or ...