The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-01-26
CITY OF RADFORD
WINS AN APPEAL
Not Liable for Personal Damages
When Blasting Frightcns
Horse
LOWER COURT REVERSED
Woman Injured in Runaway
Sued City and Was First
Awarded Damages.

| The city OF Radford 81 not liable for
damages as II result of blasting on
private property near a public street.
according to an opinion handed down
! by the Supreme Court of Appeals yes
/ terday. The case Is known as the CITY
! OF Radford against Clark. from the Cir
cult Court of Montgomery county, the
/ lower court being reversed III an opin-
ion written by Judge II. II. Cardwell.
Judge Stafford q. W-hittlc nlcd a dis
| senting opinion.
The papers set forth that Mrs Mol
lie z. Clark was driving along public
street in September 1909. in the city
of Radford: that the city was engaged
In blasting rock for use on the public
streets, the place OF blasting being
more than sixty-G-c feet from the
street along which Mrs. Clark was
driving. known as Grove Avenue. Her
horse became frightened a: the noise.
wheeled and ran away. breaking the
buggy and harness and iniuring Mrs.
Clark. The lower court gave verdict
and Judgment against the city OF Rad
ford in the sum of $500
The opinion sets forth that It was
shown from the evidence that the place
OF blasting was more than sixty-flve
feet away and was not coneoted with
the street IN any way. No ordinance
Of the city OF Radfo-d prohibited blast
Ing At the point indicated, nor does the
charter of the city specifically give il
the right TO conduct rock quarr!es Tho
opinion says:
Cit, NOT Held Eiabic.
The city cannot be held liable for
Its failure to pass an ordinance to pre-
vent or safeguard the firing of blasts
In rock quarry siNty-hvc feet or more
from street and on private property"
The court holds that the demurrer Of
fered By the city of Radford and over
ruled by the trial court. should have
been sustained, and concludes:
in view OF the fact that II is
20 be presumed that the defendant in
error has made the strongest presenta-
ton of her cause which the facts per
nit. and that It could not be bettered
II leave were given to amend this
court entering such judgment as the
Circuit Court ought TO have rendered.
Will sustain the demurrer and enter a
final judgment for the plaintiff in CIR
ror"
In his dissenting opinion Judge Whit
tie holds that while blasting is not in
itself z nuisance, yet blasting near a
public street or highway becomes a
nuisance when conducted in such q
manner as to endangcr the safety OF
travellers along such streets. II is con-
ceded however. that Mrs. Clark was
not injured by any projectilc hurled as
result OF the blast but merely b: her
horse becoming frightened at the noise
occurring on private property sixty
live feet from the street
Other Cases Decided.
In the case OF Voolfolk agains
| Graves, from the Circuit Court of SPOT.
sylvania county, upon rehearinE. the
former decision OF the court is az
| nrmed. The case affects title 10 land
! the opinion merely reciting that upoI
| rchcaring the parties had failed tc
| make out a prima face title to the
! land In question, and the decree hereto.
fore entered is approved and Will b,
| adhered to.
| In the case OF Lanford against In,
| Virginia Air Line Railway Company
| the judgment Of the Circuit Court o
! F!uvanna county is affirmed in an opiM
! lon written by Judge Curdwell.
| writ Of error and supcrscdcas wa!
allowed In the case of Patterson agains
The Commonwealth from the Circuit
Court OF Rockbridgc county. 40 bone
| is required.