Case ID: ny_236/html/0568-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Norman J. Rose, Appellant, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Respondent.
    
      Negligence — railroads — •proximate cause — action to recover for turning of plaintiff's property through spread of fire originating on defendant’s right of way — when complaint properly dismissed.
    
    
      Rose v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 199 App. Div. 949, affirmed.
    (Argued May 4, 1923;
    decided May 29, 1923.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 16, 1921, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The action was commenced by the plaintiff to recover for the alleged negligent destruction of certain buildings, trees and personal property as a result of a fire set by the defendant. Plaintiff’s farm is bounded on the west by the defendant’s railroad, which runs in a substantially north and south direction at this point, and is upon a side hill or embankment some fifteen or twenty feet above the plaintiff’s land. Between the right of way and plaintiff’s lands is a stream about twelve feet in width. West of the defendant’s right of way is a ravine and pasture owned by one Edwards. West of this pasture are three fields of about twelve, six and seven acres and beyond them about half a mile from the railroad there are woods. The fire originated on the right of way west of the track, and ran into the ravine on the Edwards farm, where there was heavy grass, and up to a pine stump fence on the Edwards place, which was at right angles to the railroad. There was a heavy wind blowing from the west at the time, which carried brands or sparks from the stump fence across the intervening lands of Edwards, the railroad right of way and the stream to the east, igniting a straw stack on the land of the plaintiff, which was piled up against his barn, causing the destruction of the barn and contents and some fruit trees. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that defendant’s negligence was not the proximate cause of the burning of plaintiff’s property.
    
      
      Mortimer L. Sullivan for appellant.
    
      Alexander S. Diven for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hxscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ. Absent: Andrews, J.