Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1883-03-28
BOROUGHS AND CITIES
Must Keep the Streets Unob-
structed or Pay Resulting
Damages,
JUDGE WHITES CHARGE.


JUDGE WHITES CHARGE.
In his charge to the jury, in the case
of Williams against Monongahela City,
recently tried in Washington, Pa,
Judge White, of Pittsburgh, laid down
the law showing the duties of borough
and city authorities as well as road
supervisors, in regard to keeping streets
and roads safe for travellers, as well as
the care required from drivers. The
following is the charge:
Gentlemen Of the Jury:-The main
facts in this case are not in dispute.
That the plaintiff was injured, and
seriously injured, is not questioned.
That be was injured by his sleigh rum
ming over pile of frozen dirt in the
street is not denied that the said pile
had been in the street from either the
9Th or 18th of December until the lst
of February is not denied; and also, it
is not denied that some of the city Off
cials, members of the street committee,
knew of its existence. The disputed
questions of fact are mainly as to the
speed at which the plaintiff was driv-
ing. 1t is also question of doubt,
under the evidence, whether the plain
tiff had any previous knowledge of the
pile of dirt, and perhaps may soy the
exten. or permanent character of the
plaintiffs injuries may be a question
for the jury.
Boroughs and cities are bound to
keep their streets in reasonably safe
condition for travellers. They should
not permit an obstruction in the streets,
or anything that is likely 20 endanger
the safety of travellers. Persons who
may wantonly place distractions in the
street, may also, under some circum,
stances, be liable in damages for per-
sonal injury; but the borough or city
is liable where the city officials have
actual knowledge of it's existence, or
where it has continued long enough to
give them information, although they
may not have had actual knowledge of
it. The neglect of q city to keep it's
streets in such condition is called in
law negligence. If the dirt pile was
some nine feet from the curh-stone in
the street, four feet in diameter at the
base, and some eighteen inches high,
and had remained on the street with
the knowledge of the officers of the city
having charge of tho streets, from the
8th or 18th or goth of December until
the lst of February, l have no hesitancy
in saying the city was guilty of negli-
gence.
The main question, gentlemen, in
this case is, Was the plaintiff guilty Of
contributory negligence? Because,
Notwithstanding the city may have
been guilty of negligence, yet if the
plaintiff was also guilty Of negligence
which contributed to the result, he is
not entitled to recover. Negligence,
in it's general definition means want of
care, the neglect to do something which
an ordinarily careful or prudent man
would have done, or doing something
which an ordinarily careful and prudent
man would not have done under the
circumstances of the case. The traveller
has right to presume that the high
way, or the street, is in a reasonably
safe condition for the entire breadth of
the street He is not confined to travel
in what is known as the beaten track.
1t is true that country roads are not
generally opened out to the width the
law fixes for country roads, generally
thirty-three feet. In cities, however,
they are generally opened out to the
entire width of the street; and accord
ing to the evidence in this case the
street was graded and paved from curb
to curb, some thirty-seven or thirty
eight feet wide all travellers, therefore,
have right to travel on any part of
that street, but when the traveller
leaves the ordinary well-beaten track
of the road, and goes to one side great
er care is required of him than when
travelling in the beaten track.
Greater care is required travelling at
night than in day time, although the
the traveller has right to presume the
street is clear from all obstructions,
and is safe the entire width OF it. Yet
the traveller cannot drive on recklessly
and indfferently; he is bound to exer-
else some care, to look where he is 60
ing, because there may be Instructions
in the highway from no fault of the city
council. There may be vehicles or ac-
cidental distractions in the highway
something that may be dangerous may
have been placed in the street few
hours before the traveller passes, and
yet the city authorities, having no
knowledge of it, it not having been
there long enough to visit them with
knowledge, might not be responsible
or an injury resulting from it. There
ore, while the travellers have right
to presume the street is clear the entire
width of it, yet they are bound to keep
their eyes about, bound to drive with
some degree of care and prudence, in
consequence of the accidental obstruc-
tions that may exist. The degree OF
care req auired of the traveller is q de.
gree of care that would be exercised by
an ordinarily prudent or cautious man
under the surrounding circumstances.