Case Name: Jacob Gramm, Resp't, v. The Village of Greenbush, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-11
Citations: 20 N.Y. St. Rep. 370
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob Gramm, Resp’t, v. The Village of Greenbush, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 20
Pages: 370–374

Head Matter:
Jacob Gramm, Resp’t, v. The Village of Greenbush, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed November, 1888.)
'Municipal cobpobations—Liability fob slippeby sidewalks.
In an action to recover damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff from falling upon an icy sidewalk, it appeared that there was ice upon the sidewalk at the place where the accident happened about two inches thick; that there was ice generally over the sidewalks of the village at the time, caused by the rain and snow of some days previous and the subsequent cold. Held, that the evidence of negligence was not sufficient to render the city liable or warrant a recovery. Citing 2aylorv. Yonleers(105 N. Y., 206), 7 3ST, T. State Rep., 332, and subsequent cases. Ingalls, J., dissenting.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict rendered by a jury at the county court of Rensselaer county, and from an order denying new trial.
H. S. Lary, for app’lt; A. J. Parker, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Learned, J.
At the place where plaintiff fell it had been Icy for two or three 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 'had 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 prevent slipping. But the village was not bound to sprinkle sand or ashes on the side walk. Taylor v. Yonkers, 105 N. Y., 206; 7 N Y Statb Rep., 332. Therefore, there was no negligence in that .respect. Something more than a slippery sidewalk must be shown to make the village liable. Kinney v. Troy, 108 N. Y., 567 ; 14 N. Y. State Rep., 15. 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 accident. There was ice thereof, 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-caused 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 and Kavery, 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 ; 8 N. Y. State Rep., 110. The plaintiff should have been nonsuited.
Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide: event.
Landon, J., concurs.