## Facts

- Peter Hover was injured when a public bridge on a town highway collapsed while he was lawfully crossing.
- The bridge had allegedly been defective for a period of time before the collapse.
- Town Commissioners of Highways had a statutory duty to keep town highways and bridges in repair.
- Hover sued William Barkhoof in his capacity as a town highway commissioner, alleging negligent failure to maintain and repair the bridge.
- At trial, the defense asked a witness to opine whether the bridge was “built safely” or was “safe and sufficient” when constructed.
- The trial court excluded the question as improper opinion evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict for Hover, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether town highway commissioners may be held civilly liable in damages for personal injuries proximately caused by negligent failure to keep a public bridge in repair as required by statute.
2. Whether excluding a lay witness’s generalized opinion that the bridge was “safe” or “built safely” was error requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Hover.
- The court held that highway commissioners could be liable for injuries caused by negligent non-repair of a bridge subject to their statutory maintenance duty.
- The court held that excluding the witness’s generalized opinion about the bridge’s safety was not reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute imposes a duty on town highway commissioners to keep bridges in repair, negligent failure to perform that duty can support a civil action by a traveler injured as a proximate result of the non-repair.
- In structural-safety negligence cases, lay witnesses ordinarily should testify to observed facts (construction details, condition, visible defects), not broad conclusions that a structure was “safe” or “unsafe.”
- Excluding conclusory lay opinion on an ultimate question for the jury does not warrant reversal where the jury can assess safety from the underlying factual evidence and no substantial right is affected.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a plaintiff’s recovery for injuries from a bridge collapse by treating the statutory bridge-maintenance obligation of town highway commissioners as enforceable through tort liability for negligent non-repair, and it also approved (at least as non-prejudicial) the exclusion of a lay witness’s conclusory opinion that the bridge was “safe.”


Hover v. Barkhoof, 44 N.Y. 113 (N.Y. 1870)