Peter F. Murphy, Resp’t, v. The City of Yonkers, App’l.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 9, 1891.)
Negligence—Municipal corporations—Defects in street.
Plaintiff was riding with others in a coach returning from a funeral through one of defendant’s streets which was in had condition. In endeavoring to cross the street to avoid a wagon the driver was thrown from his seat and the horses ran until the coach upset and injured plaintiff. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
*33Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff for $275, entered on verdict.
Plaintiff was returning from a funeral at which he, with three others, had acted as pall bearers. ' He sat in a closed coach with the driver on top. The driver came by the way of Nepperhan avenue to enable one of the other persons to get out at his own house. After he had alighted, the driver proceeded down the avenue, and perceiving a wagon and a ditch in front of the coach, endeavored to cross the street, which was in a bad condition. In doing so one of the horses slipped, turning the coach in the trench and throwing the driver off. The horses then took fright and ran about three-quarters of a mile, when the coach upset and plaintiff was dragged some distance and permanently injured.
Joseph F. Daly, for app’lt; John H. Ferguson, for resp’t.
Dykman, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the city court of Yonkers in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.
The action was brought against the city for the recovery of damages resulting to the plaintiff from a fall from a carriage in •one of the public streets within the limits of the corporation.
The plaintiff was riding in a coach on his return from a funeral, when the driver was thrown from his seat by a sudden lurch of the coach and the horses became frightened and ran some distance until the coach was upset. The plaintiff remained- in the coach and received his injuries when it was overturned.
The trial was before a jury and the plaintiff recovered a verdict which is supported by the evidence.
There are many exceptions in the case but they present no material error.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.