Swift v. City of New York

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation270 N.Y. 162,200 N.E. 681
Decision Date03 March 1936
PartiesSWIFT v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.

270 N.Y. 162
200 N.E. 681

SWIFT
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 3, 1936.


Action by Doris Swift, an infant, by Sarah Swift, as guardian, etc., against the City of New York and the Bronx Water Works Corporation. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (245 App.Div. 839, 282 N.Y.S. 244), affirming a judgment of the Trial Term on the verdict of a jury for plaintiff, defendant corporation appeals.

Judgments reversed, and complaint dismissed.

The action was brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff, aged 7 years, through the alleged negligence of the defendants, and for the loss of her services resulting therefrom.

The complaint alleged, in substance, among other things, that the defendant-appellant, pursuant to a contract with the city of New York, engaged in the installation of water pipes and mains along a certain street in Brooklyn, that, in connection therewith, it caused a trench to be dug between the sidewalk and the car tracks on said street, and that, on September 1, 1931, the infant plaintiff was caused to fall into such trench or excavation because of the failure of the defendant-appellant properly to guard the same.

There was evidence that the infant plaintiff was walking or running upon a pile of dirt alongside the excavation, and that, while thereon, she either slipped, tripped, or the dirt gave way, causing her to fall therefrom, so that she struck the side of a passing trolley car, which threw her into the excavation.

On the trial there was read to the jury section 3 of article 1 of chapter 23 of the Code of Ordinances of the city of New York, which provides in part as follows:

‘1. Barriers and guards. Every person engaged in digging down or paving any street or building therein, any sewer, drain or trench for any purpose, under contract with the city or by virtue of any permit that may have been granted * * *, shall erect such a fence or railing about the excavation or work as shall prevent danger to persons traveling the street, while the work is left exposed and would be dangerous, and any such railing or fence shall be continued and maintained until the work shall be completed or the obstruction or danger removed.’

The verdict was rendered against the defendant-appellant alone, the complaint having been dismissed as against the other defendants at the close of the plaintiffs' case.


[270 N.Y. 162]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second department.

[200...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Steeves v. City of Rochester
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • July 19, 1944
    ...here since they were ‘intended for the protection of persons traveling on the highway in the usual manner’ (Swift v. City of New Yokr, 270 N.Y. 162, 165, 200 N.E. 681, 682), we think they are some evidence that lamps rather than pot torches were considered the proper method of illumination ......
  • Salsbury v. United Parcel Serv.
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • March 23, 1953
    ...of a particular case, it must still be shown that its violation was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury (Swift v. City of New York, 270 N.Y. 162; Walther v. News Syndicate Co., 276 App. Div. 169; LaRue v. Tiernan, 260 App. Div. 337, affd. 285 N.Y. 550). It must be established that the......
  • Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Stone
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • March 3, 1936
    ...Life Ins. Co., 283 Ill. 136, 141, 119 N.E. 68, L.R.A. 1918D, 1196, said: ‘The beneficiary has an interest in the contract, and as between [200 N.E. 681]the insurer and the beneficiary all the rights and obligations of the parties are not determined as of the date of the death of the insured......
  • MacKinnon v. Hendrickson Bros. Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 7, 1964
    ...defendants were not put on notice to use greater care than the reasonable care which they actually exercised (Swift v. City of New York, 270 N.Y. 162, 200 N.E. 681; Johnson v. City of New York, 208 N.Y. 77, 101 N.E. 691; Hall v. New York Telephone Co., 214 N.Y. 49, 108 N.E. 182; Meyers v. 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Steeves v. City of Rochester
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • July 19, 1944
    ...here since they were ‘intended for the protection of persons traveling on the highway in the usual manner’ (Swift v. City of New Yokr, 270 N.Y. 162, 165, 200 N.E. 681, 682), we think they are some evidence that lamps rather than pot torches were considered the proper method of illumination ......
  • Salsbury v. United Parcel Serv.
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • March 23, 1953
    ...of a particular case, it must still be shown that its violation was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury (Swift v. City of New York, 270 N.Y. 162; Walther v. News Syndicate Co., 276 App. Div. 169; LaRue v. Tiernan, 260 App. Div. 337, affd. 285 N.Y. 550). It must be established that the......
  • Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Stone
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • March 3, 1936
    ...Life Ins. Co., 283 Ill. 136, 141, 119 N.E. 68, L.R.A. 1918D, 1196, said: ‘The beneficiary has an interest in the contract, and as between [200 N.E. 681]the insurer and the beneficiary all the rights and obligations of the parties are not determined as of the date of the death of the insured......
  • MacKinnon v. Hendrickson Bros. Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 7, 1964
    ...defendants were not put on notice to use greater care than the reasonable care which they actually exercised (Swift v. City of New York, 270 N.Y. 162, 200 N.E. 681; Johnson v. City of New York, 208 N.Y. 77, 101 N.E. 691; Hall v. New York Telephone Co., 214 N.Y. 49, 108 N.E. 182; Meyers v. 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT