Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-08

-.
either. The negligence of the driver Of
the carriage In which he Is riding Will
not prevent him from recovering dam
ages against the other driver, if he was
Negligent at the same time. The pas
senger In the carriage may direct the
driver where to go,-to such q park, or
such Il place that he wishes to see So
FAR the driver was under his directions;
but my charge to you is that. us to the
manner OF driving, the driver of, the
carriage, or the owner of the hack,--in
other words. lie who has charge OF it,
and has charge of the team,-ls the
person responsible for the manner OF
driving. and the passenger is not re-
sponsible for that, unless he interferes
and controls the matter by his own
commands or requirements"
That instruction was sustained. AZ
firmed.
ARTHUR v. CITY OF CHARLESTON
Supreme Court of Appeals OF West
Virginia.
March %, 1899.
WHERE A PERSON is INJURED
BY FALLING OVER A ROPE
STRETCHED ACROSS THE SIDE
WALK. THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE CITY WAS NEG
LlGENT DEPENDS UPON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,
AND is FOR THE JURY,
This was suit for damages for in
jury TO the plaintiff caused by his trip
ping and falling over rope, which was
stretched across q sidewalk of the de-
PENDANT city, along which sidewalk the
plaintiff was passing at night. The
facts are set forth sufficiently in the
opinion of the court. The lower court
N.Y. llyfla I,n ,I,tt til
the jury and directed verdict for de-
PENDANT, and plaintiff appealed.
The Court says:
The question presented for our con-
sideration by this record is whether the
Circuit Court erred in striking out the
plaintiffs evidence, and directing the
jury to find verdict for the defendant
The testimony udduced does not tend
in any manner to indicate that there
was any inherent defect in the pave
ment at the point where the plaintiff
was injured, and we cannot say, from
the testimony, that the sidewalk was
out Of repair; but 1t is shown that there
was an obstruction In the shape of a
rope, the same being the stern line of
the wharf boat; that the river MNs high
and the line was made fast to q tele-
graph pole on the top of the bank
Now, In order that the plaintiff should
succeed in this case, 1t was not neccs-
sary that he Should convict the de-
PENDANT OF negligence, but If, in put
ting In his evidence, he also showed
hat he was guilty of contributory neg
llgence he could not recover. Both of
these questions involved, to some ex,
tent, questions of fact. Elliott in his
valuable work on Roads and Streets,
says: The place where the injury oc-
Cured is sometimes an important mat
ter for consideration. Especially is it
so upon the question Of notice, for what
would be negligence respecting a street
in densely populated and much fire.
quented part of u city or Incorporated
town might not be so in a remote and
little used street or alley. In most
cases the question of whether the cor
poration ought to have acquired knowl-
edge is dependent upon the locality and
It's surroundings, And lis generally a
question OF fact for the jury" The
testimony in this case clearly Indicates
that the circumstances Immediately
surrounding and connected with the ac-
cident were thoroughly examined and
inquired into. The condition of the
lights at the point where the injury
occurred was Investigated, which was
proper in order to determine whether
beacon lights were necessary, or the
street was so we'll lighted as to charge
the plaintiff with negligence in not see
Ing and avoiding the obstruction.
There seems, however, to be dis
walk itself and an obstruction across It,
as in this case. In many instances OBJ
structions arc placed on the sidewalk
as matter Of necessity; for instance
where buildings are in course of con-
struction, or in case of fires or floods,
or where merchants are receiving and
discharging goods. ETC., in all which
cases the liability OF the town is de-
pendent upon the circumstances, and
whether the authorities have been neg
ligent by failing to act with sufficient
proniptness in removing the obstruc-
ton. So, in the case we are consider
ing. the question whether 1t was the
duly Of the citX-nf- Observation-Disclosures.
that this line was stretched across the
sidewalk and that the same was dan
gerous to pedestrians, and if the light
at that point was insufficient, or the
shadow of the telegraph pole fell in
such manner as to obscure the rope
and make beacon lights necessary to
warn people passing that way Of tho
danger, all bear upon. and are neces-
sary facts to be ascertained and de-
termined in reaching a proper solution
OF, the issue raised in this case, and
In determining whether the defendant
was guilty of negligence, or the plain
tiff guilty of contributory negligence.
Reversed.