Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-12-30
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
picEsTED BY w. 3. MARTIN.
Exclusively for vlrginian-Pllot.)
MARSHALL'S ADMIR-. ". VALLEY
U. CO.

November 90. 1899.
"A PUBLIC HIGHWAY MAY BE
USED IN THE DARKEST NIGHT.
TRAVELLERS HAVE A RIGHT TO
PRESUMED THAT TT IS REASON
ABLY SAFE.
a RAILROAD COMPANY is LIABLE
FOR THE DEATH OF A TRAVEL
LER CAUSED BY IT'S FAILURE
| TO KEEP A TEMPORARY ROAD
J WAY, PROVIDED. FOR THE PUB
LIC. WHILE 1T WAS LAWFULLY
oBSTRUCTING THE PUBLIC
ROAD. REASONABLY SAFE.
w. H. MARSHALL was killed while
riding on horseback at night over a
temporary roadway running around n
cut OF the defendant railroad company,
over which curt ran the public highway
on bridge. It was the duty of the
railroad company TO keep this bridge
IN order and it was engaged in putting
new iron bridge over the cut In the
place of the old bridge. While doing
this work 1t had built n temporary
roadway for use of the public round the
cut.
On the frs, trial there was a verdict
FOR plaintiff for S2,700, which the
court set aside. On the second trial
there was a verdict and Judgment for
defendant and plaintiff appealed.
The Court says:
The railroad company was engaged
In a lawful undertaking which 1t was
performing in accordance with the
views Of the authorities Of Augusta
: county. 1t cannot, therefore, be held
responsible IL 1t acted with reasonable
care. as reasonable care is the measure
OF duty In the case. When 1t became
necessary to repair the bridge 1t might
very well have INSTRUCTED the highway
while the work was being done, but
with the approval of the county
authorities 1t opened a temporary road
way along its right of way for the ac-
commodation of the public. 1t was It's
duty to exercise reasonable care in
making this temporary roadway rea-
sonably safe, and this duty it seems
TO nave recognized, for in order to full
fill 1t the barricade was extended from
the bridge so feet toward the south
"A public highway may be used in
the darkest night; a night so dark as
that the keenest and clearest vision
might not be able to detect obstacles
and defects. In such case any man
travelling upon 1t is practically a blind
man. and has a right to presume that
the highway Is In reasonably safe
condition. 1t Is true that a traveller
injured upon a public highway has in
this State no right OF action against
the county authorities, and It is true
in this case that those authorities APP
proved what was done by the defen-
dant in error; but 1t remains that the
defendant in error was constructing a
bridge in compliance with it's duty;
that In doing so 1t closed temporarily
the public highway; that it invited the
public upon its premises TO be used as
q highway while the bridge was being
constructed, and it thus became its
duty to make the use of it by the pub
lfc reasonably safe. The jury found
by their verdict that the injury to the
plaintiffs intcstatc was due to the fail
ure Of the defendant company to ex-
crcise reasonable care, and while it Is
n case by no means free from doubt,
We cannot say that the verdict OF the
jury upon this point was plainly
against the weight of evidence
by their verdict the jury also found
that the plaintiff was not guilty of con-
tributary negligence.
The judgment must he reversed and
a Judgment entered for the plaintiff in
error for $1,000 and interest. Reversed.