Case Name: HELEN MAY MILLS v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1940-11-27
Citations: 218 N.C. 564
Docket Number: 
Parties: HELEN MAY MILLS v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 218
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
HELEN MAY MILLS v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE.
(Filed 27 November, 1940.)
Municipal Corporations § 14—
Tbe complaint alleged that defendant municipality blocked tbe sidewalk and part of tbe street with dirt from an excavation and that when plaintiff attempted to walk around same, sbe stepped into tbe traveled portion of tbe street and was struck and injured by a motorist. Held: Defendant’s demurrer was properly sustained under authority of Newell v. Darnell. 209 N. C.. 254.
Appeal by plaintiff from Phillips, J., at April Term, 1940, of MecK-ILENBURG.
H. Haywood Robbins, Or. T. Carswell, and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff, appellant.
J. M. Scarborough for defendant, appellee.

Opinion:
Per CubiaM.
The complaint alleges in effect that the defendant negligently excavated a large hole across and under the sidewalk in the eleven hundred block on the east side of North Tryon Street in the city of Charlotte and negligently threw and left the dirt from the hole in such a manner as to block the sidewalk, the space between the sidewalk and the curb of the street, and about one-third of the vehicular traveled portion of the street, in such a manner as to require a pedestrian going south on said sidewalk to walk out into the portion of the street used for vehicular traffic; and that the plaintiff was walking southward on the east sidewalk of North Tryon Street, and upon reaching the obstruction caused by the excavation and dirt attempted to go around it by walking out into the vehicular traveled portion of the street, and when out in such portion of said street she was run down and injured by an automobile which was also going southward and passing another automobile iii said street; and that said negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of her injury. The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the city for the reason it appeared therefrom that the alleged negligence of the defendant was not the proximate cause of the alleged injury of the plaintiff. The court sustained the demurrer and signed judgment accordingly, from which plaintiff appealed, assigning as error the action of the court.
We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the ruling and judgment of his Honor, upon the authority of Newell v. Darnell, 209 N. C., 254, were correct.
Affirmed.