Case ID: ny-st-rep_59/html/0062-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lewis, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maude Marie V. Parcells, Resp’t, v. The City of Auburn,, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,
    
    
      Filed March, 1894.)
    
    Negligence—Contbibtjtory.
    The evidence, in this case, was held sufficient to justify the trial court in submitting to the jury the question of defendant's freedom from negligence contributing to her injuries.
    Appeal from a judgment of the supreme court entered in Cayuga, county upon the verdict of a jury.
    
      W. H. Bwrby, for app’lt; Frank F. Cady. (S. F. Payne, of counsel), for resp’t.
   Lewis, J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant for $9,000, for injuries she sustained by’ á fall upon a defective sidewalk in the city of Auburn. The appeal was from the judgment, and only one point is presented for our consideration by the appellant’s counsel. He makes no question as to the amount of the recovery, nor as to to the defendant’s negligence, but claims that the plaintiff failed to show herself free from negligence contributing to her in j uries. An examination of the evidence has satisfied us that there was sufficient evidence to justify the trial court in submitting that question to the jury. The plaintiff’s fall was caused by her stepping into a hole in the sidewalk; it occurred in the evening; it was dark at the time; the hole was partially concealed from view by grass that had grown in and about it; immediately before stepping into the hole, she had met four people walking upon the sidewalk, two abreast; she turned aside to pass them, and in so doing, without noticing the hole, stepped one of her feet into it and fell. She had been in the city but a few weeks before the accident occurred; she had passed over this walk only once or twice ; she knew that there were defects in the walk, she had passed some of them on this occasion before arriving at the one in question ; she testified that she supposed she had passed by the bad places before she met the people. The jury was justified, from the evidence, in finding that the plaintiff was free from negligence contributing to her injuries. The verdict seems to be fully sustained by the evidence. The judgment should be affirmed.

Dwight, P. J., Haight and Bradley, JJ., concur.