Case Name: GRIBBEN v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-06-22
Citations: 84 N.Y.S. 196
Docket Number: 
Parties: GRIBBEN v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 84
Pages: 196–198

Head Matter:
GRIBBEN v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 22, 1903.)
1. Dangerous Streets—Notice to Pedestrian—Presumption of Safe Condition.
In the absence of an appearance of danger readily discernible by reasonable care, the existence of which is ordinarily a question of fact, pedestrians have the right to assume that sidewalks and crosswalks are safe. 3. Same—Particular Defect—Notice—Question of Pact.
Whether a rail extending over a crosswalk constitutes a sufficient notice of danger to a pedestrian to make it her duty to avoid it is a question of fact.
MacLean,-J., dissenting in part.
¶ 1. See Municipal Corporations, vol. 36, Gent. Dig. § 1678.
Appeal from City Court of New York.
Action by Jessie Gribben against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.
H. A. Robinson, for appellant.
Frank Herwig, for respondent.

Opinion:
FREEDMAN, P. J.
As a general rule, the sidewalks and crosswalks in the city of New York are for the benefit of all conditions of people, and hence, ordinarily, every one,, in passing along over them, has the right to assume that they are safe, and to regulate his conduct upon that assumption as long as there is no appearance to the contrary. Whenever there is such an exceptional appearance, persons who pass over a sidewalk or crosswalk are chargeable with notice of its actual condition, if it is obvious or readily discoverable by the exercise of such reasonable care and caution as a careful and prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances. But this is generally a question of fact. In the case at bar plaintiff sustained injury by having her foot caught under a rail of the defendant's track extending over the crosswalk; and whether the projection, such as it was, constituted a sufficient notice to the plaintiff to make it her duty to avoid it was a question of fact. The question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was therefore for the jury, and their verdict upon this point should not be disturbed.
On the question of defendant's negligence in allowing the rail to remain for a long time in the defective condition in which it was at the time of the accident, the evidence abundantly supports the verdict.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
GILDERSLEEVE, J., concurs.