Case Name: Howard A. Waterhouse vs. Herbert C. Calef, Town Treasurer
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1899-11-10
Citations: 21 R.I. 470
Docket Number: 
Parties: Howard A. Waterhouse vs. Herbert C. Calef, Town Treasurer.
Judges: Present : Stiness, Tillinghast, and Rogers, JJ.
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
Howard A. Waterhouse vs. Herbert C. Calef, Town Treasurer.
PROVIDENCE—
NOVEMBER 10, 1899.
Present : Stiness, Tillinghast, and Rogers, JJ.
(1) Municipal Corporation. Defect in Highway. Nonsuit.
In an action against a municipal corporation for injuries resulting from a defect in the highway, where the evidence shows that the accident occurred from the backing of the wagon in which the plaintiff was seated down hill and across the road against bowlders on the edge of an embankment six or seven feet high, and about eighteen feet from the traveled way, the embankment being within the line of the highway, no defect in the highway is shown and a nonsuit is rightly granted; the bank was an ample distance from the roadway for ordinary travel on a country road, and the bowlders formed a guard against the edge of the bank sufficient, at least, in the case at bar, to keep the wagon from going into the ditch.
Trespass on the Case for negligence against a municipal corporation for injuries resulting from a defective highway. The facts are stated in the opinion. Heard on petition of plaintiff for a new trial. New trial denied.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A sufficient ground for sustaining the non- suit in this case is the fact that the testimony shows no defect in the highway.
Page & Page and Arthur Cushing, for plaintiff.
Tillinghast & Murdoch, for defendant.
The accident occurred from the backing of a wagon, in which the plaintiff was seated, down hill and across the road against bowlders on the edge of an embankment six or seven feet high, and about eighteen feet from the traveled way. It does not appear whether this embankment was within the line of the highway; see Potts v. Allen, 19 R. I. 489. But, assuming it to be so, the bowlders formed a guard against the edge of the bank sufficient, at least, to keep the wagon from going into the ditch, and the bank itself was an ample distance from the roadway for ordinary travel on a country road. The plaintiff failed to sustain the allegations of his declaration.
Petition for new trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division for judgment.