New York Co v. Fruchter 1922

• Decision Date: 13 November 1922
• Docket Number: Nos. 35,36,s. 35
• Citation: 67 L.Ed. 173,43 S.Ct. 38,260 U.S. 141
• Parties: NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO. v. FRUCHTER (two cases). Argued Oct. 6-9, 1922
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

260 U.S. 141

43 S.Ct. 38

67 L.Ed. 173

NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

v FRUCHTER (two cases).

Nos. 35, 36.

Argued Oct. 6-9, 1922.

Decided Nov. 13, 1922.

Mr. James W. Carpenter, of New Haven, Conn., for petitioner.

Messrs. Harold R. Medina and Leon Sanders, both of New York City, for respondents.

[Argument of Counsel from page 142-143 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Since 1908, 149th street, New York City, has been carried over and across the tracks of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad by a public municipal steel truss bridge of standard construction. The bridge is 54 feet wide, 270 feet long and is formed of posts, beams, girders, etc., connected and strengthened by trellis or lattice work. The top girders, or beams, are 23 feet above the street. The local law imposes upon the railroad the duty of maintaining the framework; the municipality is required to keep the roadway in repair.

Fastened to the top girder at the end of the bridge are two upright steel lattice towers, posts, or struts. Cross-arms, attached to these 6 feet above their bases, support bare wires carrying electric current used for operating trains. The nearest wire is 19 inches from the strut.

With considerable difficulty and some danger active boys can climb to the highest parts of the bridge. They did often climb upon it; some reached the struts. They were frequently chased away by a policeman and the railroad guard, and seem generally to have understood that to play there was forbidden; when a officer came in sight, they kept off. At each corner of the bridge there was a notice board displaying the words: 'Live Wires. Danger. Keep Off.'

In June, 1916, the plaintiff David Fruchter, 8 years old, by using the trellis work, climbed from the street to the top of the bridge in quest of a bird's nest. He then saw a bird on the wire above, and to catch it claimbed up the strut and reached out; the bird flew away; his hand touched the wire, and severe injuries resulted. He sued for damages, and the father also seeks to recover for loss of services and expenses incurred. The causes were tried together. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed judgments for the plaintiffs February, 1921. 271 Fed. 419.

At the time of the accident the boy was attending school. Whether he could then read the warning words upon the notice boards is left in doubt; upon the witness stand he both affirmed and denied that he could. He further stated that before climbing upon the bridge he looked to see whether a policeman was present, and admitted that if one...