NOW THIS IS A RUT

In Boice v. City of Kingston, Mary Boice sued the City of Kingston for personal injuries she sustained when she tripped and fell in a rut on a public street.

After the City argued that it hadn't received prior written notice of the defect, the Ulster County Supreme Court dismissed the case.

On appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department, Boice argued prior written notice wasn't needed because the City had created the defect and had actual or constructive knowledge of its existence.

The AD3 was of the view written notice was required, despite any actual or constructive notice the City may have had.

While Boice showed water accumulation and the lack of proper drainage gradually caused the defect, the AD3 thought the municipality needed to have created an "immediate detective or hazardous condition" in order to trigger liability.

Since there was no evidence the City performed patchwork repairs, or that such work caused Boice's fall, Boice's case fell into a rut of its own.

Didn't Boice see that one coming?

For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Boice v. City of Kingston