Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceliabilityappealtrialsustainedcontributory negligencejury instructions
plaintiffnegligencetrialcontributory negligencejury instructions

Related Cases

Harb v. City of Bakersfield, 233 Cal.App.4th 606, 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 59, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 877, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1001
View Case »
Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219, 41 Fla. L. Weekly S101, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,793
View Case »
Sandy v. Bushey, 124 Me. 320, 128 A. 513
View Case »
Manning v. Michael, 188 Conn. 607, 452 A.2d 1157
View Case »
Forsyth v. Joseph, 80 N.M. 27, 450 P.2d 627, 1968 -NMCA- 105
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 247 N.Y. 340, 160 N.E. 391, 57 A.L.R. 1

Facts

Frances McFarlane was walking in Niagara Falls when she stumbled on a fanlike projection on the sidewalk, which had existed since the sidewalk's construction two or three years prior. The projection was irregular and slanting, jutted out about sixteen inches, and had been noticed by McFarlane on previous occasions. The incident occurred in late December after dark, leading to her injuries and subsequent lawsuit against the city.

Plaintiff, walking in the city of Niagara Falls, stumbled as she was stepping from the driveway to the walk. She caught her heel against a fanlike projection where the cement had melted and run.

Issue

Did the trial court err in its instructions to the jury regarding the effect of contributory negligence on the plaintiff's ability to recover damages for injuries sustained due to a nuisance?

We have gone into these distinctions for their bearing on the law of contributory negligence.

Rule

A plaintiff may not avoid the consequences of their own contributory negligence by labeling the defendant's negligence as a nuisance when the nuisance has its origin in negligence.

We think the charge was error.

Analysis

The court analyzed the jury instructions given by the trial judge, which stated that if the jury found the accident was caused by the plaintiff's negligence, she could not recover. The court found this to be an error, as it did not properly address the relationship between contributory negligence and the existence of a nuisance. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's awareness of the dangerous condition and her duty to exercise reasonable care were critical factors in determining liability.

The court analyzed the jury instructions given by the trial judge, which stated that if the jury found the accident was caused by the plaintiff's negligence, she could not recover.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and granted a new trial, stating that the jury should have been properly instructed on the implications of contributory negligence in relation to the nuisance claim.

The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Trial Term should be reversed and a new trial granted with costs to abide the event.

Who won?

The City of Niagara Falls prevailed in the appeal, as the court found that the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous and warranted a new trial.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

You must be