Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-10-05
TIE NEWS Of NORFOLK" ONPAGEs p 3 ANDT5

right ankle, and causing her great
pain and suffering 0he injuries and
DANA es being particularly set forth
IN the petitionl. The bridge where Pc
utioner was injured was out of re-
pair, and 1t was the duty Of the de-
PENDANT company to keep it In safe
condition, as 1t was a part of a private
Way established pursuant to law.
Inc defendant, although repeatedly
notified OF the defective condition of
the bridge In question:; neglected and
refused to repair the same. At the
conclusion of the plaintiffs testimony
on motion OF defendants counsel, the
court granted anonsuit. to which rul-
Ing the plaintiff excerpts.
It appears from the plaintiffs tesh-
mony that the house In which she had
been living for some time before the
injury occurred was a very short dis
lance from the crossing and the bridge
where she was hurt. She had been us
Ing the bridge in passing over 1t daily,
and for some time before her injury
was thoroughly familiar with its con-
dition. She herself had made complaint
TO the railway. employees about the
dangerous condition of the bridge and
asked that IT. be repaired.
The testimony developed no emer-
gency or special necessity why she
should. at the time she was injured
have gone to the public highway, and
as for that matter, even If such neces-
sity had existed, why she could not
nave pursued a perfectly Sc &c route in
another direction, which did not in
volve crossing the bridge.
me defendant having purchased ut
judicial sale, it Is claimed is not bound
TO keep in repair roads other than
those established pursuant to law and
entered on the road book. Under the
view we take of the case, however
II is unnecessary to enter into dis
cussion or determination of this inter-
estinE point. Conceding, for the sake
Of the argument, that such an obllga-
ton was upon the defendant, yet, un-
der the evidence Itself, an insurmount-
able obstacle In the way of PLAINTIFFS
recovery In this case is that the proof
upon which she relies shows that she
could have avoided the injury of which
she complains by the exercise of ordi-
nary care and diligence There can be
no doubt about the soundness OF the
principle that IL this injury was caused
by the plaintiffs own negligence, or if
she could have avoided the same by
the exercise OF ordinary care and dill
gence, She cannot recover. This prin-
clple constitutes valid defense In all
actions OF this kind, whether against an
Individual, county, municipality, or
a corporation. If 1t is possible for tcs-
timony to make the danger of such n
structure obvious and exceedingly great
~ G'eH d. CASUAL observer, the teSti-
mo1Y OF the plaintiff presents such an
instance. She knew not only of the
bad and defective condition of the
bridge, but she knew that the planks
were not nailed. that there were large
cracks between them, and that some
OF them were rotten and liable to break
at any time of their own weight. Be-
sides this, she could have reached her
destination very readily without going
over the bridge at all; and. even if
there was n necessity for her to go to
the public highway Mt the time she did
common prudence would have demand
ed that she take the safer though per
maps the more circuitous route, rather
than the dangerous and more direct
one. Says Justice Lumplkin in the case
above cited: "Whcre the danger is cx-
ceedingly small and trivial. it may not
be at all negligent to disregard 1T;
where 1t is exceedingly great and obvi-
Gus, 1t would be negligence per Sc to
dncur the hazard Of being injured by
it." Affirmed.