Case Name: Mary Ochs, Respondent, v. Frederick W. Kroehle and Charles J. Kroehle, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-12-13
Citations: 185 A.D. 374
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Ochs, Respondent, v. Frederick W. Kroehle and Charles J. Kroehle, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 374–378

Head Matter:
Mary Ochs, Respondent, v. Frederick W. Kroehle and Charles J. Kroehle, Appellants.
First Department,
December 13, 1918.
Negligence — action for injuries resulting from slipping upon ice in front of defendants’ premises formed from water alleged to • have been thrown upon sidewalk'by defendants’ janitor — evidence— res gestae — verdict against weight of evidence.
In an action to recover damages for an injury resulting from plaintiff’s slipping upon the ice in front of the defendants’ premises, upon the ground that the water forming the ice was negligently thrown upon the sidewalk by the defendants’ janitor, a recovery cannot be sustained upon the evidence of a policeman that the janitor told him that he threw the water on the sidewalk, which testimony was contradicted by the direct evidence of the janitor and by two written declarations of the policeman.
The declaration of the janitor after the doing of the act was no part of the res gestee and was in no way binding upon the defendants.
The judgment should, therefore, be reversed for lack of legal proof of any act of negligence on the part of the defendants, and also upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
Mebbell and Dowling, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Frederick W. Kroehle and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 20th day of March, 1917, upon the verdict of a jury for $10,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
James I. Cuff, for the appellants.
Julian J. Raphael of counsel [Jacob Klein, attorney], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Smith, J.:
The action is brought to recover damages against the defendants for an injury occurring through the plaintiff's slipping upon the ice in front of the defendants' premises, the claim being that the water forming the ice was negligently thrown upon the sidewalk by the defendants' janitor. The evening was very cold, and if the water had been thrown upon the walk by the janitor it might have frozen and caused the dangerous spot upon which the plaintiff claims to have fallen.
The difficulty with the plaintiff's case lies in the fact that there is no legal proof that the janitor did in fact place this water upon the sidewalk. The only evidence to that effect is the evidence of the policeman, Hood, who swears that shortly prior to the accident he called the janitor's attention to the ice and that the janitor said that he had been cleaning the hah and went to throw the pail of water in the street and some of it went on the sidewalk. While this evidence is in the case unobjected to, nevertheless, the verdict of the jury must have some legal proof upon which to stand. This declaration of the janitor after the doing of the act, and not part of the res gestee, was in no way binding upon the defendants and did not constitute legal proof as against the defendants of the negligent act upon which the verdict of the jury was allowed to rest. The janitor upon the stand denies that he threw the water upon the walk and denies that he so stated to the policeman. The policeman, Hood, reported to the police department that the water was thrown upon the walk by someone unknown. He made an affidavit for the corporation counsel before the trial, in' which he stated that he asked the janitor how the water got there and the janitor replied that he did not know. It will thus be seen that defendants have been charged in damages upon the hearsay declaration of their janitor to a witness who, twice before the trial, had made written declarations to the contrary. For lack, therefore, of any legal proof of any act of negligence on the part of defendants, as well as for the reason that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.
Clarke, P. J., and Shearn, J., concurred; Dowling and Merrell, JJ., dissented.