Case ID: ad_104/html/0033-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Willard Barlett, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Minnie Miller, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant, Impleaded with The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Defendant.
    
      Negligence — the existence of a hole seven inches deep in a paved street — it justifies a verdict in famor of one injured by stepping into it — testimony in respect thereto based on observation and not on measurement—photograph taken six months after the injury — amount of verdict.
    
    The existence in the paved roadway of a street in the city of New York of a hole seven inches deep is sufficient to authorize a finding of negligence on the part of the city, which will render it liable for personal injuries sustained by a person stepping into the hole during the night time.
    
      The fact that witnesses estimated such depth by visual observation, instead of by actually making mechanical, measurements, does not render their'testimony incompetent, hut simply affects the weight to. he given thereto.
    A photograph of the hole taken six months after the accident ' may properly be admitted in evidence, where it appears that such photograph correctly repre- „ sented.the condition of thehole.on the day of the accident, with the qualification. that it vras then deeper than shown in the photograph. .
    A verdict for §2,500 held not to be excessive.
    
    Appeal by the defendant, The City of ¡New York,from a judgment, of the Supreme Court in favor o¡f the plaintiff and against the said defendant, entered in' the office of the clerk of the'county of Ein^s on the 12th day of March, 1904, upon the verdict of a jury for $2,500, and also from an order entered! in said clerk’s office on the ■29th day of March, 1904, denying the-isaid defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
    
      Edward H. Wilson [ James D. Bell and John J. Delany with him on the brief], for the appellant.
    
      Henry A. Powell, for the respondent.
   Willard Barlett, J.:

In this action the plaintiff has recovered a verdict of $2,500 damages for injuries sustained by stepping into a hole in the paved roadway of a city street in the borough of Brooklyn, just after she had alighted from an electric car in the night time. It is argued that the hole was not of such a character as to make its permitted •existence negligence on the part of the municipality, under the authority of Hamilton v. City of Buffalo (173 N. Y. 72). In-that case it was held as. a matter of law .that a municipal corporation. ' - was .not chargeablé with negligence for permitting the existence in ■ a flagged sidewalk of a rounded depression about four inches deep-Evidently having that decision in mind, the learned trial judge in; the case at bar expressly charged the jury as a matter of law that if. this was .not a hole six, seven or eight inches deep, as stated by the' witnesses on the part of the plaintiff; but was a' saucer-shaped ■depression, not over four inches in depth at its lowest point; the defendant would not be liable; The-proof -clearly.¡justified, a finding that- the hole was seven inches deep, and it cátinot fairly be held that the conclusion which the jury must have reached to that effect was against the weight of evidence. The plaintiff herself testified that her leg was injured seven or eight inches above the ankle, and that the bruises on that part of the limb were caused by the edge of . the stone. There was testimony from another witness to the effect that the hole was seven inches in depth, and from others that its depth exceeded five inches.

None of the exceptions to which our attention is called by counsel for the appellant points to any error on the part of the trial court. The fact that witnesses merely estimated the depth of the hole by visual observation instead of actually making mechanical measurements, while it affected the weight to be given to their testimony by the jury, did not render such testimony incompetent. The objection to the photograph which was admitted in evidence, that it represented the condition of the hole in October, 190% instead of in April, 1902, the time of the accident, was rendered ineffectual by proof that it correctly represented the hole in the condition in which it was on the day of the accident, with the qualification that it then appeared to have been deeper than shown in the picture.

In view of the fact that the plaintiff sustained a fracture of her ankle, and in the light of all the evidence in the case as to her suffering, and the- other effects of the injury, we are unable to pronounce the verdict excessive under the circumstances.

The judgment and order should be affirmed.

Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Bartlett, Jerks and Miller, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.