Case Name: POOSER v. TOWN OF SALLEY
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1917-11-04
Citations: 108 S.C. 288
Docket Number: 9823
Parties: POOSER v. TOWN OF SALLEY.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices AVatts and Gage concur in the opinion of the Court.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 288–290

Head Matter:
9823
POOSER v. TOWN OF SALLEY.
(93 S. E. 1006.)
Municipal Corporations — Defective Sidewalk — Question for Jury.— Where the evidence showed that plaintiff was injured at night by stepping into a washout in the sidewalk, granting defendant’s motion for a nonsuit was improper, as what is a defect in a street is to be construed in the light of all the circumstances making the negligence of the parties a jury question.
Before MemmingEr, J., Aiken, October, 1916.
Reversed.
Action by Mary J. Pooser against the Town of Salley. Judgment for nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals.
Messrs. Croft & Croft, for appellant,
cite: As to care due: 37 R. R. A. (N. S.) 1159. Issue for jury: 102 S. C. 83; 96 S. C. 467; 95 S. C. 305; 97 S. C. 333; 98 S. C. 51 and 129; 101 S. C. 256; 100 S. C. 109; 106 S. C. 130.
Messrs. J. B. Salley and Hendersons, for respondent,
cite: As to statutory liability: Civil Code, 1912, sec. 3053; 58 S. C. 417; [73 S. C. 254; 87 S. C. 277; 94 S. C. 377. Necessity for notice of defect: 2 Smith Munc. Corp. 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1544 and 1545; 9 S. E., 17; 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1000; 69 S. C. 357 and 359; 83 S. C. 551; 88 S. C. 553; 64 N. Y. 636; 51 App. Div. 450; 89 S. C. 31. Care of streets: 84 S. C. 124; 2 Smith Munc. Corp. 124. Nonsuit: 106 S. C. 128, 129; 99 S. C. 421; 104 S. C. 30.
November 4, 1917.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
Mrs. Pooser lives in the town of Salley. On her way from church one night, she was walking on a sidewalk across which there was a drain and over the drain there was a bridge. The dirt of the sidewalk was not even with the bridge and there was at the bridge an excavation made by the washing of water. Into this depression Mrs. Pooser stepped and fell, and received injuries for which this suit is brought. At the close of plaintiff's testimony, the defendant moved for, and the trial Judge granted, a nonsuit. In granting the nonsuit the presiding Judge said :
"As to what is a defect in a street, that is to be construed in the light of all the circumstances in the case."
That is true, and that made it a question for the jury, and a new trial is ordered. The case of Lancaster v. City of Columbia, 104 S. C. 228, 88 S. E. 463, is so recent that no discussion is necessary. That case was a protruding root; this an excavation.
This case has not been prepared in accordance with the rule, and no costs for printing the case is allowed.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices AVatts and Gage concur in the opinion of the Court.