Case Name: GEORGE v. CYPRESS HILLS CEMETERY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-07-11
Citations: 52 N.Y.S. 1097
Docket Number: 
Parties: GEORGE v. CYPRESS HILLS CEMETERY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 52
Pages: 1097–1118

Head Matter:
GEORGE v. CYPRESS HILLS CEMETERY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
July 11, 1898.)
Cemetery Association—Neglect or Graves.
In an action against a cemetery corporation to recover damages for personal injuries due to the alleged negligence of the defendant in allowing poison ivy to grow upon the grave of the plaintiff’s husband, so that she was poisoned thereby, it appeared that the grave was in the so-called “public ground,” where the defendant only mowed and cleaned up the whole ground once or twice a season, as occasion required, and that it was not paid to give special care to the grave. There was no evidence that the ivy in question had been growing there for any substantial time prior to plaintiff’s injury, or that it had been growing elsewhere in that part of the cemetery, or that the defendant had any actual notice of its presence. Held, that the evidence did not support a finding of the absence of reasonable care, for which alone the defendant would be liable.
Woodward, and Hatch, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Kings county.
Action by Barbara E. George against the Cypress Hills Cemetery. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Joseph A. Burr, for appellant.
Almet F. Jenks, for respondent.

Opinion:
WILLARD BARTLETT, J.
By the verdict in this case the defendant corporation has been held to be chargeable with negligence in allowing poison ivy to grow upon the grave of the plaintiff's husband, in Cypress Hills Cemetery, so that the plaintiff was severely poisoned by such ivy in June, 1895, while she was engaged about the grave in planting flowers. The evidence that the plaintiff's sufferings were actually caused by ivy poisoning was rather meager. The physician whom she consulted at the time testified that he treated her but •once for the trouble of which she complained, which was an inflammation of the skin, and that, while whatever he told her was right, he had no recollection at the trial in regard to what he did say to her. He presumed he prescribed the usual remedies for poison ivy, but could not tell what he prescribed. The case, he said, did not attract much .attention on his part. "I remember Mrs. George coming into my -office one summer morning with her face considerably swollen," he testified, "and that is all that I recall. It was swollen, reddened, and sensitive, to the extent of all skin inflammations to produce that state •of affairs. It might be attributable to ivy poison." This is supplemented by the testimony of the plaintiff herself that the doctor told-her she was poisoned with ivy; and, in view of the fact that poison ivy was found growing on her husband's grave two months later, I am inclined to think that there is enough in the record to sustain the finding of the jury in this respect, though I should be much better satisfled if the proof was stronger on this branch of the case.
The ¿rave" of the plaintiff's husband is situated in a part of Cypress Hills Cemetery known as "Locust Grove." The superintendent describes it as the "public ground," in which persons buy graves for $12 each. According to his testimony, "the cemetery does not own the soil, but the purchasers buy the graves out and out, and they have jurisdiction themselves over the grave," In this view of the legal relation of the parties, the witness was in error, as it appears that the plaintiff received a mere ticket of interment. The position of the plaintiff, as the purchaser of the grave, was analogous to that of the •owner of a church pew. Buffalo City Cemetery v. City of Buffalo, 46 N. Y. 503. She had acquired the right to use it for a certain purpose, .and the right of access to it, under such rules and regulations as the corporation was empowered by law to establish. Among other things, the statute authorizes such a corporation as the defendant "to regulate the introduction and growth of plants, trees and shrubs, within the cemetery grounds." Laws 1874, c. 245, § 4. In the so-called "public .ground," where this grave was, the corporation only mows and cleans ¡up "the whole ground all over, including the ground between the .graves," once or twice a season, as occasion requires; and nothing more is done there, except to particular graves, which the association m especially paid to care for.
Having regard to the control which the law gave to the corporation, ¡and which it actually exerted within the limits of the cemetery, I think its officers and agents were bound to exercise reasonable care not to permit the introduction into the lots, or upon or about the graves, of anything which they knew, or ought to have known, would constitute an unusual source of danger to persons lawfully visiting such lots -or graves. Whether poison ivy comes within this class of perils may be doubted; but, assuming that it does, I am unable to agree with the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice WOODWARD, that the proof an the present case is sufficient to establish a failure on the part of the corporation to fulfill its legal obligation in respect to it. I question very much whether the courts can take judicial notice of the dangerous properties of poison ivy. There does not seem to be entire Jiarmony of view among botanical authorities in regard to the liabili.ty of persons to be injuriously affected by it. The fact is tolerably familiar that it is extremely poisonous to some persons, and wholly ¡harmless to others, but what proportion of those who touch it are thereby poisoned does not appear to be even approximately known. Where the facts are so indefinitely ascertained, the courts can hardly •take judicial notice of a matter, but must act upon the proof with re.gard to it in each particular case. Assuming, however, that the defendant's representatives in the management of the cemetery knew '•ihat poison ivy was likely to be harmful to a considerable proportion of the persons who might be unfortunate enough to touch it, the extent of their duty, as it seems to me, was measured by the obligation to exercise reasonable care to prevent the presence of the plant about or among the graves. The corporation certainly was not an insurer against its appearance in places where it might do injury. The .association was only bound to do what an ordinarily prudent person would do to avert danger from this.source. There is no suggestion that the corporation was cultivating poison ivy in the cemetery. There is no evidence of actual notice to the association that poison Ivy was growing on the grave of the plaintiff's husband, until after the visit at which she says she was poisoned. Nor do I think that the ¡proof is sufficiently strong to charge the defendant with constructive notice that it was there. The superintendent admitted that there was .some poison ivy in the unimproved part of the cemetery, but that appears to be a wholly different locality, where it could do no harm to visitors. Another witness said he had been poisoned by poison ivy "in this same cemetery in 1891, at a spot which he designated as "Lot .232 on Stony Path"; but there is nothing to show that this is in the ¡same part of the grounds as the grave of the plaintiff's husband, -or anywhere near it. In August, 1895, two months after the alleged ¡poisoning of the plaintiff, a florist visited her husband's grave at the instance of her attorney, and he testified that he found poison ivy on and about the grave. "It ran on the grave from the walk way," he ¡said. "It would probably take two or three months to have the growth that I saw it have on the grave." This witness could not express an opinion that the ivy which he found there might not have grown since-June. So that there really is no proof in the case from which it can fairly be inferred that the ivy which poisoned the plaintiff had been there long enough to justify us in holding that the association, in the-exercise of reasonable care, was bound to know of its presence in that part of the cemetery. I am of the opinion, therefore, that no liability should be imputed to the defendant upon the facts disclosed by -this record. I concur fully, however, with the conclusion of Mr. Justice-WOODWARD that the defendant cannot be held exempt from responsibility for the negligence of its agents and servants on the-ground that it is a charitable corporation, and in the reasoning by which he reaches that result. The difficulty that I find with the-judgment here is that the defendant is not shown to have violated the-rule of reasonable care, which I think is all the law imposed upon it. The courts should be extremely cautious, it seems to me, not to lay down any new rule, or enlarge any old one, so as to extend the liability of those who own or control land, for the presence of poisonous plants upon their property. So far as I know, poison ivy (rhus toxicodendron) and poison sumach (rhus venenata) are the only common plants in the-Eastern United States which are poisonous to the touch. Poison sumach grows chiefly in swampy places, where its inaccessibility prevents persons from approaching it with anything like the frequency with which they may encounter poison ivy. The latter is one of the-commonest forms of vegetation to be met with in this part of the state. It abounds in the Second judicial district, and in Rockland county, in the autumn, the stone walls for miles in the country around' the court house are clothed with poison ivy, and to some extent beautified by the colors of the foliage, The plant may be found along the roadside in nearly all the rural parts of the Greater New York. If' the traveler on the highway is to have a right of action against the municipality because it leaves this shrub there to poison his legs, or-an action against the farmer for allowing poison ivy to grow on a wall which the wayfarer leans against in taking his noonday rest, a novel and interesting, not to say onerous, class of negligence suits: will speedily be developed. I am in favor of a reversal of this judgment.
CULLEN, J., concurs.