94 N.Y. 27, Saulsbury v. Village of Ithaca

Citation:94 N.Y. 27
Party Name:RACHEL SAULSBURY, Appellant, v. THE VILLAGE OF ITHACA, Respondent.
Case Date:November 20, 1883
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 27

94 N.Y. 27

RACHEL SAULSBURY, Appellant,

v.

THE VILLAGE OF ITHACA, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

November 20, 1883

Argued Oct. 15, 1883.

COUNSEL

F. E. Tibbetts for appellant. Municipal corporations are required to keep their streets and sidewalks in proper repair and free from dangerous obstructions, and are liable for injuries resulting from their neglect so to do.

Page 28

(Conrad v. Village of Ithaca, 16 N.Y. 158; McCarthy v. City of Syracuse, 46 Id. 194; Hinds v. City of Lockport, 50 Id. 236; Sewell v. City of Cohoes, 75 Id. 45; Davenport v. Luckman, 37 Id. 568; Diveny v. City of Elmira, 51 Id. 506; Clifford v. Dam, 81 Id. 52; Dillon on Municipal Corporations [1st ed.], 571; Cooley on Torts, 625, 626.)Defendant having officially recognized the street, both by resolution and by working on it, is estopped from questioning that it is a public street. (Sewell v. City of Cohoes, 75 N.Y. 45; 7 Gray, 338; 13 Vt. 424; 45 Id. 99.) Defendant will not be permitted to escape liability simply because it took no action in the premises. (Hyatt v. Village of Rondout, 44 Barb. 395; 41 N.Y. 619; Hinds v. City of Lockport, 50 Id. 239; Dillon on Municipal Corporations [1st ed.], § 753.) It is not essential who built the walk, nor whether it was built by the order, or under the supervision of the municipal officers; the only question is, did the corporation allow it to be used for public travel. (Requa v. City of Rochester, 45 N.Y. 129, 134; Niven v. City of Rochester, 76 Id. 621; James v. City of Portage, 48 Wis. 677; Tuck v. City of Ripon, 52 Id. 200; Oliver v. City of Kansas, 69 Mo. 79; Beatty v. Town of Duxbury, 24 Vt. 155; Johnson v. City of Milwaukee, 46 Wis. 571; Potter v. Castleton, 53 Vt. 440, 441; State v. Compton, 2 N. H. 518; Lafayette v. Larson, 73 Ind. 367; Urquhart v. City of Ogdensburg, 18 Weekly Dig. 261; Bloomington v. Bay, 42 Ill. 508; Hiller v. Village of Sharon Springs, 16 Weekly Dig. 12.) This sidewalk, in the condition the referee finds it was at the time of the accident, was an obstruction in one of the public streets of the village of Ithaca, which it was the duty of the board of trustees to order removed after notice. (Hume v. Mayor, etc., 74 N.Y. 275; Clifford v. Dam, 81 Id. 53; Oliver v. City of Kansas, 69 Mo. 79; Todd v. City of Troy, 61 N.Y. 506.)

S. D. Halliday for respondent. If there was no defect in the surface of this walk, and a man should walk...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP