Keane v. Village of Waterford

• Decision Date: 01 December 1891
• Citation: 130 N.Y. 188,29 N.E. 130
• Parties: KEANE v. VILLAGE OF WATERFORD.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

130 N.Y. 188

29 N.E. 130

KEANE

v.VILLAGE OF WATERFORD.

Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division.

Dec. 1, 1891.

Appeal from supreme Court, general term, third department. Affirmed.

Action by Ann Keane against the village of Waterford to recover damages for a personalinjury. Plaintiff obtained judgment, whch was affirmed by the general term. Defendant appeals.

N. C. Moak and Thomas O'Connor, for appellant.

J. F. Crawford, for respondent.

HAIGHT, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for a personal injury.

On the 23d day of Jannary. 1886, the plaintiff, while walking with her daughter-in-law upon the sldewalk on Broad street, in the village of Waterford, slipped and fell, receiving the injuries for which the jury has a warded damages. The accident occurred nearly in front of the bar-room door of the Worthington Hotel, at about 7 o'clock in the evening, and after it had become dark. There is some conflict as to the condition of the walk, but all agree that it was slippery.

It is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that there was a ridge of snow and ice extending length wise of the walk, which was four or five inches thick, and that it sloped either way from the top of the ridge; that it was this ridge that caused her to slip and fall; while, on the part of the defendant, it was claimed that the ridge was composed of ice which was formed from water dripping from the roof of the piazza in front of the hotel. Considerable evidence was given in support of this contention. The trial court charged the jury that if the ridge was of ice formed from the drip from the roof of the piazza the defendant was not liable. Of this charge the appellant does not complain. It is claimed to be in accordance with the rule laid down in the case of Kaveny v. City of Troy, 108 N. Y. 571, 15 N. E. Rep. 726. Whether it is or not we do not now deem it necessary to consider, for the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and must therefore be deemed to have found that the ridge was not so formed; and, while we might have reached a different conclusion had we been called upon to determine the fact in the first instance, we are of the opinion that there is evidence which supports the verdict in this regard. It appears that in the early part of the month, between the 5th and 8th, there was quite a heavy fall of snow; that again, on the 19th of the month, there was a fall of nearly eight inches. The witness Thomas Cramer testified that the ridge was five or...