The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-05-09
TOWN OWNS THE SIDEWALKS
judge Clark Holds That the Ahutting
Proprietor Has No More Rights i'm
the Sidewalk Than In The Road

Chief Justice Walter Clark in an
opinion handed down yesterday in the
Supreme court, holds that the sidewalks
of a town are simply parts of rhe
streets which the town authorities
have set apart for the use Of pedes-
TRANS, and the abutting proprietor
than in the roadway. In other words,
the city or town owns the sidewalks
in the same way as the rest of the
street.
In the case of w. D. Hester VS.. Dur
ham Traction Company, the plaintiff
owns the lot which occupies the Apex
of the acute angle which lies at the
junction of Main and Chapel Hill
streets in Durham, and he had brought
suit on the ground that the street cars
in rounding the sharp curve at that
point, overhang the sidewalk a few
inches. According t o the charter OF
Durham, the city as usual has the
same right and title, says the opinion,
to the sidewalks as to the rest of it's
streets.
Judge Clark concludes:
The complaint sets out three
grounds of damage: 1. That two
inches Of the plaintiffs lot is covered
by the defendants track, but the evil
dence shows that the rail at the near
est point Of the curve is three inches
outside the curbing to the sidewalk,
Inc the pleadings admit that no part
Of the plaintiffs lot inside the side
Walk is overhung by the car passing.
90. That vehicles have almost no
approach to the lot. But evidence is
hat between the outer edge of the
sidewalk and the defendants nearest
rail there is Is 1-2 feet ON Main
street and Is IL feet ON Chapel Hull
street. 1t is only at the Apex, at the
toe of the boot, so to speak, that the
track apprOXimates the outer edge of
the sidewalk. There is ample evidence
that the curve does moi interfere with
carriages standing on either street in
front of the plaintiffs lot at the toe Of
the plaintiffs lot is only I feet {
inches, and being an acute angle it
would be barely a foot perhaps at the
edge of the sidewalk, a carriage could
not stand there. The toe of the side
walk (the cross sidewalk) is % feet
5 Ia inches, but over 20 feet OF this
is frontage, not of the plaintiffs lot,
but caused by continuation of the tWO
sidewalks, for if the PLAINTIFF lot were
extended to the eastern edge Of the
sidewalk at that place, it would be mar
rowed, as already said, to a point with
almost no front at all.
"3. That cars frequently run Off the
track at that point. The only evidence
is that they did run off the track three
first used
or -four times when the curve was
first used. There is no evidence of
any injury to the plaintiff from tais
cause.
"The sidewalk is simply a part of
the street which the town authorities
have set apart for the use of pedes-
trians. = + 4 The abutting proprietor
has no more right in the sidewalk than
in the roadway. His rights are SIM
ply that the street (%including roadway
and sidewalk shall not be closed or
INSTRUCTED SO as to impair ingreSS
or egress to his lot by himself and
those whom he invites there for trade
or other purposes. Sidewalks
are of modern origin. Anciently they
were unknown aa they still are in
eastern countries and in perhaps a ma
jority of the towns and villages of Eu-
rope. In the absence of statutes a
town is not required to construct a
sidewalk 1t is for the town 10
prescribe the width of the sidewalk.
In the absence of statutory restriction
it may widen, narrow or even renoV
a sidewalk already established Is
If the sidewalk were so far narrowed
as to impede the circulation OF pas
SerSby on foot so as to hinder the IN
gress and egress TO the plaintiffs build
ing, he would lave cause of complaint,
but such is not the case here. Ii the
Overhanging car were to injure any Ole
walking on the sidewalk, UGH person
might possibly have a cause OF acLlOn
against the city or the defendant, for
the establishment and maintenance Of
the sidewalk are an invitation to pc
destrians to walk anywhere thereon,
but the plaintiff would not be injured
thereby in his property rights to the
lot, which is this cause of action. AS
to pedestrians, the city can protect it
self by reducing the width Of h side
walk at that point, or by condenlning
a few inches of the plaintiffs lot to
make a cut off at the outer corner
without reducing the width Of the
sidewalk, but it should be remembered
that that small space, occasionally
overhung by a passing car, as at a
corner of the street, and therefore the
sidewalk measured ~diagonally is wider
there than elsewhere, and would still
be wider, though the little space over
hung were cut off from the sidewalk,
or the outer curbing of the sidewalk
were drawn in and made curving at
that point.
I'm holding that the acts of the de-
PENDANT complained of by the plaintlf
were not unlawful and did not consti-
tute a case for action, there was no
error."-Raleigb Post.