Case Name: Gram v. Village of Greenbush
Court: New York Supreme Court General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-11-20
Citations: 3 N.Y.S. 76
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gram v. Village of Greenbush.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 3
Pages: 76–79

Head Matter:
Gram v. Village of Greenbush.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
November 20,1888.)
Municipal Corporations—Defective Streets—Icy Sidewalks.
In an action against a village for injuries caused by slipping on a sidewalk on which ice was allowed to accumulate by defendant’s negligence, the evidence showed the ice to be two inches deep or more. The time for which it had been there was variously stated at “all winter, ” “two or three weeks, ” and “four or five days. ” The ice was caused by water from melting ice running over the walk, .there being no gutter opened to carry it away. Within four or five days before the accident it had rained and snowed, and it then froze. No ashes or other material had been placed on the ice. Seld not evidence of negligence sufficient to warrant a recovery. Ingalls, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Rensselaer county court.
Action by Jacob .Gram against the village of Greenbush for injuries caused by the accumulation of ice on a sidewalk. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Ingalls, JJ.
JK. S. Lary, for appellant. A. J. Parker, for respondent.
As to the liability of municipal corporations for injuries caused by icy and slippery sidewalks, and what is constructive notice of such defects, see Duncan v. City of Buffalo, 2 N. Y. Supp. 503, and note; Adams v. Town of Chicopee, (Mass.) 18 N. E. Rep. $31, and note.

Opinion:
Learned, P. J.
At the place where plaintiff fell it had been icy for two or rthree weeks. The cause (as stated by a witness) was- that there had been a thaw, and, instead of the ditch or gutter being open to allow the water to run ¡there, it had run over the sidewalk. According to one witness it rained two .nights before the day of the accident, and froze very hard after the rain. It was very slippery on the sidewalk, and the sidewalks were about the same all •over the village. According to the records of the signal service, it rained and snowed five days before the day of the accident, and not afterwards, but continued cold. There seems to be no proof that the ditch or gutter was out of order. Probably the witness means that it was filled up by the ice. Proof was given that there were no ashes or proper materials put on the ice to pre"vent slipping, but the village was not bound to sprinkle sand or ashes on the ¡sidewalk. Taylor v. Yonkers, 105 N. Y. 206, 11N. E. Rep. 642. Therefore '.there was no negligence in that respect. Something more than a slippery ¡sidewalk must be shown to make the village liable. Kaveny v. Troy, 108 N. Y. 571, 15 N. E. Rep. 726. That statement by the court of appeals does not .mean simply that the city must have had notice; because the court is speaking of the condition of the sidewalk, not of notice of that condition. In the ¡.present case there seems to have been nothing special at the place of the ac•cident. There was ice there perhaps some two inches thick. So there was ice generally over the sidewalks of the village, caused by the rain and snow of some days previous,, and the subsequent cold; and, to show the village negligent, we should have to hold it to have been their duty in these five days to •.remove, or cause to be removed, all the ice from all the sidewalks in the village. Under the principles laid down by the court of appeals in the three late cases, those of Taylor, Kinney, [15 N. E. Rep. 728,] and Kaveny, we think that a cause of action was not made out against the village. We may notice also, the Muller Case, 32 Hun, 24, affirmed 105 N. Y. 668. The plaintiff should have been non-suited. Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide-event.
Landon, J., concurs.