Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-01
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
WRGINIAN-PILOT.
sA e.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest 70
Our People.
FAY v. CITY OF WINSTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
April II, 1900.
WHERE A CITY PERMITS PLUMB
ERS TO DIG A DITCH IN A
STREET 1T IS LIABLE FOR IN
JURY TO A BLIND MAN WHO
FELL INTO THE DITCH. IT is
NOT NEGLIGENCE FOR ~ BLIND
MAN TO USE THE STREETS
WITHOUT AN ATTENDANT, OR
WITHOUT CONSTANTLY FEEL
ING Ills WAY WITH A STAFF.
The facts are stated in the oponion
of the court
The court says:
Beck. plumber, was employed by
Jacobs to replace old pipes with new,
and to do the work it became neces-
sary to dig Il ditch from the curb line
of the street across the sidewalk. When
the workmcn quit for the day they left
a plank or pianks across Il part of the
ditch and hung up II red lantern lighted
TO warn pedestrians. Shortly after
ward the plaintiff. who was blind and
who was regularly accustomed to walk
along the street, came along and fell in
the ditch and was injured
His honor refused to charge the jury
that the placing of a plank or planks
across the ditch and hanging up the
red lighted lamp relieved the defendant
from the charge of negligence He
added. properly, qualification to the
elect That those precautions of the con-
tractor should be considered by the jury
and that it was for them to say wheth-
or or not they were sufficient to enable
person of ordinary prudence in the
exercise OF ordinary care to have passed
with reasonable safety. The court also
IN ir,e,t ~ ha
that the plaintiff could not recover be-
cause the work was not done by the
CITY or its employees or agents; and he
also properly refused to instruct them
mat the defendant was not liable UNI
less the city authorities had knowledge
mat the ditch was being cut, and that
the worl:mon had left it In Il condition
dangerous ana unguarded. McGruder.
the city engineer and superintendent of
the water works, testified that the work
being done by Beck was not IL new con-
Hectlon. but was simply the changing
OF pipes. and that no permission by
him was necessary in the case; that the
city had been permitting plumbers to
do this kind of work up TO that time
without application. and without Il per-
NIT. and that board of aldermen Of the
city knew they made repairs without
permit. The court instructed the Jury
that the fact that the plaintiff was
piiiu uiu uOl Oh ltStlI make 1t Negligent
to pass along the public sidewalk with
out a guide. and without making every
effort to ascertain IL any danger was
in his way; but he also instructed them
that being blind did not relieve him
from exercising ordinary care In pass
ing along the sidewalk. and that ordi-
nary care on his part meant n higher
degree of care than would be required
oil person in the possession of all his
senses. The main questions then, for
determination on the trial below. were
whether the defendant was negligent.
and whether the plaintiff contributed to
It's negligence The jury responded to
the first issue Yes" and to the second
issue No" The special inctuctions
asked by the defendant were given in
substance where they ought to have
been given. and declined where they
ought to have been declined. AS we
have intlmated there might he object
ionable features 10 parts of the charge
OF his honor. but they were not ex-
cepted to. Affirmed.
POTTER v. DETROIT G.. II. &. NJ nv