Robert v. Powell
| Decision Date | 12 November 1901 |
| Citation | 61 N.E. 699,168 N.Y. 411 |
| Parties | ROBERT v. POWELL. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Second department.
Action by Francis B. Robert against Sarah H. Powell. From a judgment of the appellate division (57 N. Y. Supp. 1146) affirming a judgment for defendant, dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Abram I. Elkus and Frank Lawrence, for appellant.
Henry A. Powell, for respondent.
The plaintiff in this action sought to recover damages for a personal injury sustained, as he alleged, from an unlawful obstruction maintained by the defendant in a public street of the city of New York. There is no dispute about the facts in the case. On the night of the 20th of February, 1897, the plaintiff, while walking rapidly on Fifty-Eighth street, crossed the street diagonally from the defendnat's house in order to take a cab, and stumbled over a stepping stone or carriage block maintained by the defendant in front of the residence, No. 324 West Fifty-Eighth street. The stone over which he fell was 18 inches high, 13 inches long, and 16 inches wide. There was an open passageway between the stone and the house in front of which it stood of about 8 feet of sidewalk. The front edge of the stone was back from the front edge of the curb about 9 or 10 inches, and the place where the accident occurred was so lighted at the time that the plaintiff could easily see the cab which he sought to take, and which was about 250 feet away from him when he saw it. The theory of the plaintiff is that this stepping stone maintained upon the sidewalk in front of the defendant's house was a public nuisance, and that she is responsible to him in damages for the injury sustained. On the trial of the action testimony was given on both sides in regard to the facts and circumstances, and there was no material conflict as to the nature of the alleged obstruction, or as to the manner in which the plaintiff received the injury. The defendant's counsel requested the court to dismiss the complaint, or to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. The court decided to submit the case to the jury, reserving, however, the decision of the defendant's motion until after the case had been passed upon by the jury. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000, which the trial court subsequently, upon consideration of the whole case, set aside, and dismissed the complaint, holding and deciding virtually that the undisputed facts and circumstances disclosed at the trial constituted no ground of liability on the part of the defendant. The action of the trial court was unanimously affirmed at the appellate division, and the question here is whether there was any evidence given at the trial which should have been submitted to the jury, or which disclosed any cause of action against the defendant.
We think the decision below was clearly right. No other result could be upheld unless we are prepared to say that every object of this character which is placed in a public street constitutes a nuisance, or that a jury would be justified in finding it to be such. It is quite true, as the learned counsel for the plaintiff contends, that every unlawful obstruction placed in a public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.A.A.C.P. v. Acusport, Inc.
...of the use of the street); the nature of the interference, here the nature of the defendant's business, see, e.g., Robert v. Powell, 168 N.Y. 411, 414-15, 61 N.E. 699 (1901); whether the conduct is prohibited or permitted by a statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, see, e.g., Claw......
-
National Ass'n for the Advancement v. Acusport, Inc., 99 CV 3999 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. 7/21/2003)
...of the use of the street); the nature of the interference, here the nature of the defendant's business, see, e.g., Robert v. Powell, 168 N.Y. 411, 414-15 (1901); whether the conduct is prohibited or permitted by a statute, ordinance or administrative regulation, see, e.g., Clawson v. Cent. ......
-
Emelle v. Salt Lake City
... ... R. 482; Teague v. Bloomington, 40 ... Ind.App. 68, 81 N.E. 103; McDonald v. St. Paul, 82 ... Minn. 308, 83 A. S. R. 428, 84 N.W. 1022; Robert v ... Powell, 168 N.Y. 414, 85 A. S. R. 673, 55 L. R. A. 775, ... 61 N.E. 699; Smith v. Rexburg, 132 P. 1154; ... Cincinnati v. Fleischer, ... ...
-
Grace Lefebvre's Admr. v. Central Vermont Railway Co.
... ... circumstances. Wolff v. District of ... Columbia , 196 U.S. 152, 49 L.Ed. 426, 25 S.Ct. 198, 1 ... Ann. Cas. 967; Robert v. Powell , 168 N.Y ... 411, 61 N.E. 699, 55 L. R. A. 775, 85 A. S. R. 673. It all ... depends upon how the particular object affects the ... ...