Speir v. City of Brooklyn
| Decision Date | 03 October 1893 |
| Parties | SPEIR v. CITY OF BROOKLYN. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from city court of Brooklyn, general term.
Action by S. Fleet Speir against the city of Brooklyn for damages for the setting fire to plaintiff's house by fireworks. From a judgment of the general term (19 N. Y. Supp. 665) affirming a judgment of the special term (18 N. Y. Supp. 170) in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The facts appear in the following statement by ANDREWS, C. J.:
One Amantrano obtained a permit from the mayor's office, Brooklyn, for the discharge of fireworks at the corner of Montague and Clinton streets, adjacent to the Acadcmy of Music in that city, which permit recited that it was granted under chapter 3, art. 3, § 2, of the city ordinances. Under this permit, on the night of November 1, 1887, there was a display of fireworks, consisting of rockets, shells, bombs, balloons, and colored fire, conducted by one Bidwell, (who had been employed by Amantrano,) in the streets at the place mentioned, on the occasion of a political meeting. A copy of the permit was sent from the mayor's office to the chief of police, (as was the custom when such permits were granted,) and in consequence of the permit the police did not interfere with the display. The display was extensive, and the rockets used were large and powerful. During the display one of the rockets entered the window of plaintiff's house, within 60 or 80 feet from the point where it was discharged, setting fire to the house, and occasioning the damage for which the action was brought. It had been customary for the mayor to grant similar permits for the discharge of fireworks in the streets on occasions of political meetings, under the assumed authority of the ordinance referred to. The city ordinances relative to fireworks are as follows, (chapter 3, art. 4, § 2:) ‘No person shall fire or discharge any cannon, gun, pistol, fowling piece or firearm of any description, or store or sell or offer to sell, explode or set off any firecracker, rocket, squib or combustible fireworks of any description, within the city limits: provided, that nothing in this section contained shall be construed to extend to any fireworks exhibited by order of the common council, or by any exhibitor who shall be authorized by a permit from the mayor to exhibit the same for public amusement, under a penalty of twenty-five dollars for each and every offense.’ Chapter 3, art. 5, § 14: ‘The use of fireworks of all descriptions is prohibited within the city limits, except on the whole of the fourth day of July in each and every year: provided, however, that this section shall not apply to such public displays as may be authorized by the city authorities, or such private displays as may be allowed under permit from the mayor granted for such purpose; and any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding five dollars for each and every such offense.’ Further facts are stated in the opinion.
Almet F. Jenks, for appellant.
Wm. C. De Witt, for respondent.
The finding of the trial judge that the use of the street for the discharge of fireworks constituted a public nuisance is amply justified, in view of the circumstances.It has been decided in some cases that the discharge of fireworks in the streets of a city or village is a nuisance per se, and subjects persons engaged in the transaction to responsibility for any injury to person or property resulting therefrom. Jenne v. Sutton, 43 N. J. Law, 257; Conklin v. Thompson, 29 Barb. 218. It may be doubted whether the doctrine, in its full breadth, can be maintained. The practice of making the display of fireworks a part of the entertainment furnished by municipalities on occasions of the celebration of holidays or the commemoration of important public events is almost universal in cities and villages; and we are not prepared to say that this may not be done, and that streets and public places may not be used for this purpose, under the supervision of municipal authorities,-due care being used both as to the place selected, and in the management of the display,-without subjecting the municipality to the charge of sanctioning a nuisance, and the responsibility of wrongdoers. But the circumstances in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Splinter v. City of Nampa
...thus liable and the authorities so hold: Dunn v. Boise City, 48 Idaho 550, 283 P. 606; Speir v. City of Brooklyn, City Ct., 19 N.Y.S. 665, Id., 139 N.Y. 6, 34 N.E. 727, 21 L.R.A. 641, 36 Am.St.Rep. 664; Waldron v. City of Utica, 228 App.Div. 37, 238 N.Y.S. 401 at page 407; City of Chicago v......
-
Tipton v. Town of Tabor
...advance to nuisance (fireworks); issuing permit placed it under same liability as if it created nuisance itself); Speir v. City of Brooklyn, 139 N.Y. 6, 34 N.E. 727, 728 (1893) (city issuing fireworks permit held liable for resulting fire); Kolb v. Mayor of Knoxville, 111 Tenn. 311, 76 S.W.......
-
City of Winona v. Botzet
... ... 404, 12 S.W. 52, 54, 15 Am.St.Rep ... 840), from fireworks in a street which set fire to private ... property adjoining ( Speir v. City of Brooklyn, 139 ... N.Y. 6, 34 N.E. 727, 21 L.R.A. 641, 36 Am.St.Rep. 664; ... Landau v. City of New York, 180 N.Y. 48, 72 N.E ... ...
-
Davis v. Provo City Corporation
...were not taken to avoid injury to citizens, the same court held that a fireworks display was a nuisance. Speir v. City of Brooklyn, 139 N.Y. 6, 34 N.E. 727, 21 L.R.A. 641. In the case of Husband v. Salt Lake City, supra, Justice Hanson presented a definition of nuisance, which was not appro......