Case Name: Alma McCord, App'lt, v. The Town of Ossining, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-07-01
Citations: 10 N.Y. St. Rep. 407
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alma McCord, App’lt, v. The Town of Ossining, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 10
Pages: 407–410

Head Matter:
Alma McCord, App’lt, v. The Town of Ossining, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed July 1, 1887.)
Negligence—Municipal corporation—Obstruction op roads.
This action was brought to recover damages sustained by reason of the alleged defective condition of one of the highways of the town of Ossining. One Fox was building a fence upon the line of the highway. Some stones, of the ordinary size and appearance, were placed on the side of the road and outside of the traveled part, to be used in the wall. The plaintiff, in driving along the road, was not inconvenienced by the stones; had no difficulty in passing, but her horse shied and threw the wagon against the opposite fence. Held, that there was no proof of negligence upon the part of the town officers. That the town was not liable. D'íkman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the defendant, on the report of a referee.
In the latter part of November, 1884, one Fox, commenced to remove a fence adjoining his property along a public highway, in the town of Ossining, and to rebuild the same out into the highway some eight or ten feet from the former location of the fence, and placed the foundation stones in the gutter along the side of the highway, for a distance of about two rods.
Before so placing these stones, Fox, by his agent, applied to one Wheeler, then a commissioner of highways of said town, for him, said Wheeler, to designate him, said Fox, the line of the highway adjoining his land at the place where he desired to rebuild said fence.
The line was staked out and Fox commenced to build on that line, and placed the foundation stones on or near said line in the gutter along the side of the road as above-stated. On the 10th or 11th of December, 1884, the attention of Bartholomew Ryder, another of defendants commissioners, was called to the manner in which Fox was building his fence, and the obstruction to the highway caused thereby. On the same day a meeting of the commissioners of highways of said town was held, and at said meeting a resolution was passed directing Fox to remove the said obstruction. This notice was served within a day or two after-wards on Fox, to which notice Fox paid no attention, and the commissioners did nothing further in the matter until in April, 1885, at which time the stones still remained as. placed by Fox. The point where these obstructions were placed was on a hill. During the week prior to the 25th day of January, 1885, there was a fall of snow succeeded by rain. These stones blocked up the gutter on the side of the highway and caused the water to flow across the same, so that on the 25th day of January, 1885, ice had formed across the traveled part of said road and made the same to slope to the opposite side and to a picket fence. The road between the obstruction (the stones aforesaid), and said picket fence was sixteen feet wide.
On the 25th day of January, 1885, the plaintiff was passing over that part of said highway which was so obstructed, driving a horse attached to a wagon in which plaintiff and her sister were riding. As she was passing the point above-mentioned her horse was started at these stones in the gutter, and shied from them, the wagon slipped sideways or slued on the ice and struck the picket fence which frightened the horse and he jumped ahead and the wagon hit a tree a few feet away, a wheel of the wagon was broken; the plaintiff was thrown to the ground, and seriously injured; the horse got away and the wagon was broken in pieces.
W. A. Hunt, for app’lt; Smith Lent, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
There was no proof of negligence upon the part of the town officers which can be said to have been the proximate cause of the accident. One Fox built a fence upon the line of the highway according to a survey. The survey brought the line further into the road than the old fence indicated, but is upon the line of the road as originally laid out." Some stones of the ordinary size and appearance were placed on the side of the road and outside of the traveled part to be used in the wall. The plaintiff in driving along the road was not inconvenienced by the stones; had no difficulty in passing, but her horse shied and threw the wagon against the fence. The theory of the plaintiff is that the horse was frightened by the stones on the side of the road. This is not a thing which the best of attention can guard against. The finding in respect to them is "that they were ordinary stones, such as are used to build stone walls, and had nothing peculiar or strange about them."
The referee is, therefore, right in his finding that no negligence was proven.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs.