Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-14
COURT DECISIONS.
DicEsTED BY w. q. MARTYR.
Exclusively for virgln:an-Pilol,
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest 10
Our People.
JONES v. WILLIAMSBURG.

JONES ". WILLIAMSBURG.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
January is 1900.
A CITY is LIABLE FOR FAILURE
TO KEEP ITS STREETS IN A RlA-
sONABLY SAFE CONDITION, BUT
NOT FOR A FAILURE TO PASS AN
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BICY-
CYCLISTS FROM USING THE SIDE
WALKS.
The plaintiff was struck and injured
Wniie upon u sidewalk OF the city Of
Williamsburg by bicycle that was be-
ing rldden upon such sidewalk and he
brought this suit against the city for
damages. The city demurred to the de-
ciaration. the lower court sustained the
demurrer and Jones appealed.
inc court says:
a municipal corporation has n dual
character. one public and the other pri-
Viite. and exercises correspondingly
two-fold functions, the one government
tai and legislative. and the other pri-
Vate and ministerial.
Ihe line of distinction between the
Two classes OF powers and duties is
clearly drawn by the courts and text
writer's. and the exemption OF the NUM-
clpality from liability in the one case.
and it's liability in the other, for an
injury resulting from negligence, firmly
established.
Streets, like other highways. are for
the use of the public and their use is
none the less for the public at large be-
cause they are within the municipality
and subject to it's supervision and CON
troi. streets, as popularity distinguished
from Sidewalks, though including the
latter. are principally designed for the
q
walks for the use of pedestrians. Bicy-
cieS come under the definition and de-
scription OF vehicles, and sidewalks are
not the proper place for them. But tho
right TO regulate the use of the high
ways OF the State or OF the streets OF n
oI.y Is cicarlv n governmental power,
ana It's exercise. whether by the State
or by municipal corporation as an
agency of the State. is legislative and
discretionary; and being legislative and
discretionary. Il municipal corporation.
as an arm of the State, is no more liable
lor the failure to exercise the power or
Tor It's improper exercise than the State
Itself would be.
The defendant was empowered by It's
charter to lay off streets and walks and
improve the same, but it was wholly
within It's discretion when and where il
would do SO. For THE omission to ey-
ercise the power, 1t being Legislative and
y
an injury occurring in consequence of
the omission. although when the power
was exercised. the duty to keen the
streets and walks in n reasonably safe
condition for travel would become a
ministerial and positive duty, for the
nesiect whereof 1t would be liable for
an injury resulting therefrom. The
condition Of the street or walk how
ever. Is one thing. and the manner of
IT'S use by the public is quite n differ
ent thing. For its safe condition the
city is responsible, but for Its unlaw-
ful or Improper use. it is not
Inc exemption of municipality from
liability for an injury resulting from
the unlawful or improper use of its
streets and sidewalks, with the reason
therefor. Is very clearly stated in Tho
CITY of Lafayette VS.. Timberlake.
supra case OF injury resulting from
"coasting" upon a sidewalk, where the
court said:
The manner in which a highway OF
a city is used is a different thing from
Its quality and condition as a street.
The construction and maintenance of
street In safe condition for travel
is a corporate duty, and for a breach of
such duty an action will lie: but max
ing and enforcing ordinances regu-
lattng the use OF streets brings into eX-
ercise governmental, and not corporate.
agreed that for q failure to exnrcise ianl
islative, judicial or executive powers OF
government, there is no liability"
An injury caused by n bicycle ridden
upon sidewalk is not distinguishable
from an injury caused by "coasting. {"
and the ground of exemption from lia-
bility applies equally in the former case
as in the latter.
Our conclusion Is that the declaration
does not state case Of legal liability.
ana that the demurrer was properly
sustained. The Judgment of the Cir
cult Court must be affirmed. Affirmed.