Case Name: Simeon Bly, Resp't, v. The Village of Whitehall, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-02
Citations: 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: Simeon Bly, Resp’t, v. The Village of Whitehall, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 14
Pages: 294–302

Head Matter:
Simeon Bly, Resp’t, v. The Village of Whitehall, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed February, 1888.)
1. Negligence—Finding of referee — When not disturbed upon appeal.
At a point where one of the defendants’ streets is intersected by another the former is crossed by a walk, the angle formed by this walk and the sidewalk is covered over with boards, a gutter running beneath it to conduct the surface water away. This gutter having become clogged by ice and snow, the defendant cleared and deepened it, and the work being unfinished at nightfall, left it unguarded and unlighted. The water accumulated at that point until it covered the triangle and gutter and froze. The plaintiff, walking in the dark, mistaking the extent of the triangle, stepped into the deepened gutter and was injured. This action was brought to recover damages therefor.. Held, that the facts were such that the referee having once passed on the question whether the defendant was guilty of negligence, his determination would not be disturbed by the appellate court.
<3. Same—Contributory—What does not constitute.
Held, that circumstances being such as to require the plaintiff to judge hastily what course he should take, he could not be charged with lack of prudence because of a wrong deteimination.
3. Judgment—On report op referee—When it will not be disturbed
Held, that a judgment based on the report of a referee would not be disturbed where it was a proper one, although the referee had neglected to respond to requests to find on matters of detail.
4. Negligence—What does not constitute.
Held, that the defendant was not guilty of negligence in not placing a light by the place of the accident, as it was under no obligation to light its streets. Fish, J., dissenting.
5. Same—Contributory—What will constitute.
Held, that the deepening of the gutter in no way contributed to the accident, and that the plaintiff, having testified that the place was dangerous looking, was guilty of contributory negligence in proceeding toward it.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered in Washington county, upon the report of the referee.
The action was to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of the alleged negligence of the defendant in not properly guarding a gutter or excavation by the side of a sidewalk. The plaintiff, while walking in the night upon and along the sidewalk, stepped off into the excavation and was injured. William street in the village of Whitehall runs northerly, Sanders street intersects the westerly side and is at right angles to William street.
There is a plank sidewalk upon both sides of William street, and upon the south side of Sanders street, the latter walk extending across William street to its easterly side, forming a cross-walk, and the westerly sidewalk of William street extending across Sanders street, forming a cross-walk. Where the cross-walk on Sanders street intersects the southerly sidewalk of Sanders street on the westerly side of William street, the inner angle thus formed is filled with planks forming part of the sidewalk in the form of a gore or triangle, being about three and a half feet long on each interior side. Along the southerly side of Sanders street is an open gut ter for surface water running easterly and passing beneath this triangular part of the sidewalk and discharging into a covered drain in William street.
On the 14th of March, 1885, this passage for the water under the sidewalk became obstructed and the defendant’s superintendent of streets attempted to open it, and in doing so, increased the usual dej)th of the gutter by three or four inches by the side of this triangular piece of the sidewalk.
The work not being completed when night came, they went away and left it unguarded and unlighted. The bot-' tom of the gutter as thus excavated was from twelve to fifteen inches below the edge of the triangular part of the sidewalk.
It had been thawing during the day and the water had risen and flowed over the sidewalk, but a sufficient opening had been made in the gutter to allow the water to pass into the drain. It became very cold at night and the ice soon closed the passage and the water accumulated and overflowed the intersection of the sidewalks and part of Williams street, and was partly frozen at 9:30 in the evening.
At that time the plaintiff, carrying his child in his arms, and accompanied by his wife and adult son, passed along the easterly sidewalk of William street and turned westerly upon the Sanders street cross-walk in order to continue their course along the Sanders street sidewalk.
The night was very dark. In crossing William street the plaintiff stepped into the water upon the westerly portion of the street, continued his journey but not being able to distinguish sidewalk from gutter, both being covered by partly frozen water, he stepped off this triangular piece of the sidewalk into the gutter and excavation and was injured. He was well acquainted with the intersection of the sidewalk, and though he did not know of the recent excavation in the gutter, he knew that care was needed to avoid stepping into it, and he exercised care.
J. S. Potter, for app’lt; Otis A. Dennis, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Landon, P. J.
From the above statement of facts it must be obvious, that whether the defendant was negligent in permitting such a gutter or excavation to be ungarded by the side of and beneath the edge of its sidewalk is a question, which when passed upon by the referee as a matter of fact adversely to the defendant, the court will regard as properly settled.
The fact that there was no rail or guard along this part of the walk or cover over the gutter, is evidence of a disregard for the safety of the passer-by by night.
But it is urged that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. But what did he neglect to do, that common prudence demanded of him ? He knew of the usual danger of the place. He intended to take care, and tried to, but the circumstances were such that his care was not effective to protect him. He was on his road home, and he suddenly found that there was a new difficulty and he must get out of it, or avoid it the best way he could. He knew well enough that if he went straight ahead on the sidewalk he was safe, and he concluded to go straight ahead, but as the sequel showed, he did not fully appreciate the difficulty of keeping straight ahead in the dark, in the water, and with a child in his arms.
If his attempt .to keep straight ahead was a mistake in judgment he was in a condition where any man of ordinary prudence would judge hastily; a prudent man would not naturally stand still in the water a great while in order to consider the question whether he should go backwards, forwards or sideways. It being permissible to judge hastily, he cannot be charged with a lack of prudence if his judgment turned out to be wrong.
But within the authorities it was a question of fact upon the evidence and we cannot see that the referee erred in his finding upon it.
The defendant urges that the sudden overflow of the water was the proximate cause of the injury, and that was too recent to charge the defendant with notice. But this position is untenable. The overflow of water, concurring with the darkness, prevented the plaintiff from distinguishing between sidewalk and gutter. It was not. itself the weapon of injury but a condition exculpatory of the plaintiff from the charge of negligence, like a strong wind, or the noise of machinery, which sometimes prevent a traveler, approaching a railroad crossing, from hearing the approaching train or its bell or whistle. The railroad company is not responsible for the wind or noise, but for its own acts or omissions, the consequences of which may be aggravated by these temporary or casual surroundings.
The defendant made several requests for findings of fact which the referee did not respond to. We have examined these requests and think that most of them contained propositions of fact fully sustained by the evidence. If such findings, if made, ought to have changed the result, then the judgment should be reversed, but if they ought not to have changed the result, then the defendant has not been injured.
These requests embrace descriptions of the condition of the sidewalks, streets, gutter, water, acts of the plaintiff and defendant, and are substantially in accord with the facts as above stated.
The defendant was not entitled to a finding that the defendants were not negligent; that the plaintiff was negligent; and that the overflow of water was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; and hence, notwithstanding the omission of the referee to find as he ought to have done, most of the plaintiff's requests with respect to details, the judgment awarded was proper and should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Parker, J., concurs.