Scott v. Curtis
| Citation | 195 N.Y. 424,88 N.E. 794 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. CURTIS et al. |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1909 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by William Scott against Grove T. Curtis and another. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (126 App. Div. 916,110 N. Y. Supp. 1145) affirming a judgment for plaintiff in the court below, defendants appeal. Reversed, and a new trial granted.Frank V. Johnson, for appellants.
William Arrowsmith, for respondent.
The plaintiff is the owner of certain real property in the city of New York on which is a house, and under the sidewalk in front of the house are coal bins used in connection with said house, and through the sidewalk is an opening or coal hole and a chute leading into said coal bins. The plaintiff purchased of the defendants 15 tons of coal to be delivered in said bins. The defendant's employés came with a load of said coal, and the plaintiff showed them where to remove the fastenings to the cover over said coal hole, and saw them remove said cover, and the load of coal was delivered in the bins through said hole and chute leading therefrom. The plaintiff left his house, but returned before all of said coal had been delivered, and, as he passed over the sidewalk into his house, noticed that the cover was on the coal hole. A few minutes afterwards, and before the defendants' employés had returned, he heard an outcry, and ascertained that a woman, passing the house on the sidewalk, had fallen into the hole. The woman who fell into the hole brought an action against this plaintiff for damages. In her complaint she alleged that ‘the defendant wrongfully and negligently permitted said coal hole to be and continue, and the same then and there was so badly, insufficiently, and defectively covered and protected that by means thereof plaintiff * * * fell into said coal hole. * * *’ The plaintiff herein, as the defendant in said action, denied the allegations of negligence on his part. He thereupon gave notice in writing to the defendants in this action of the commencement of said action, and that the same was coming on for trial, and requested the defendants to come in and defend said action, and also notified them that they would be held liable by him for the verdict and judgment rendered in the action so brought against him, but the defendants did not intervene in said action. When said action came on for trial, the defendant conceded his liability. The court thereupon directed the jury to assess the amount of damage suffered by the plaintiff, and they found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff therein in the sum of $2,500, and judgment was thereafter entered against the plaintiff in this action for the amount of such verdict and costs.
The plaintiff in this action subsequently paid the judgment. This action was then brought against the defendants, and the plaintiff alleges that while the defendants were in the control of said coal hole and chute they ‘negligently and carelessly left the cover of the said hole or chute improperly, insufficiently, and defectively covered and unguarded and unprotected, and that, by reason of the said carelessness and negligence of the said defendants,’ the plaintiff in the action previously brought against him was injured without any fault or negligence on his part, but that such injury ‘was wholly caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendants.’ The complaint further alleges the bringing of said action against him, and the recovery and payment of said judgment. It demands judgment against the defendants for the amount paid by the plaintiff in satisfaction of said judgment, and for certain expenses incurred in defending said action. On the trial in this action the judgment roll in said action was received in evidence, and the plaintiff rested without showing in detail how the accident occurred, or the specific act or acts of the defendants upon which he bases their liability to him.
An owner of real property who maintains a coal hole in the sidewalk in front of his property is liable to a passer-by who is injured jured by falling into such hole when open and unguarded or when negligently and carelessly covered, although the person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London Guar. & Acc. Co., Ltd., of London, England v. Strait Scale Co.
...St. Joseph v. Union Ry. Co., 116 Mo. 636; Ry. Co. v. Warehouse Co., 139 Ga. 29; Roth Tool Co. v. New Amsterdam Co., 161 F. 709; Scott v. Curtis, 195 N.Y. 424; Littleton Richardson, 34 N.H. 188; McArthor v. Ogletree, 4 Ga.App. 429; Commrs. of Lexington v. Aetna Ind. Co., 155 N.C. 219. (4) Th......
-
Allison v. Shell Oil Co.
...in favor of the party liable in law who had not contributed to the injury. (Pfau v. Williamson (1872), 63 Ill. 16; Scott v. Curtis (1909), 195 N.Y. 424, 88 N.E. 794; see Van Slambrouck v. Economy Baler Co. (1985), 105 Ill.2d 462, 469-70, 86 Ill.Dec. 488, 475 N.E.2d 867.) Thus, in order to e......
-
Miller v. New York Oil Company
... ... the present case finds support in the many authorities cited ... in notes to Scott v. Curtis, 195 N.Y. 424, 88 N.E ... 794; Robertson v. Paducah, 146 Ky. 188, 142 S.W ... 370, and Grand Forks v. Paulsness, 19 N.D. 293, 123 ... ...
-
London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Scale Co.
...St. Joseph v. Union Ry. Co., 116 Mo. 636; Ry. Co. v. Warehouse Co., 139 Ga. 29; Roth Tool Co. v. New Amsterdam Co., 161 Fed. 709; Scott v. Curtis, 195 N.Y. 424; Littleton v. Richardson, 34 N.H. 188; McArthor v. Ogletree, 4 Ga. App. 429; Commrs. of Lexington v. Aetna Ind. Co., 155 N.C. 219. ......