Case Name: Burnett v. City of Rome
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1910-04-19
Citations: 7 Ga. App. 640
Docket Number: 2203
Parties: Burnett v. City of Rome.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
2203.
Burnett v. City of Rome.
Action for damages; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Hamilton. September 13, 1909.
Submitted December 20, 1909. —
Decided April 19, 1910.
Mrs. Burnett sued the City of Rome for damages on account of personal injuries from a fall alleged to have been caused by the condition of a street in which she was walking. Her petition was dismissed on demurrer, and she excepted. The petition alleged, that she boarded a car in east Rome for the purpose of being transported to a designated point on Broad street in south Rome; that when the car reached a certain street she was informed by the conductor that she would have to transfer to the south Rome car, which was on the south Rome bridge, and would have to walk to it, a distance of a. fourth of a mile; and she thereupon walked in that direction. “When the petitioner got to First Avenue the street way which crosses from the sidewalk on the east side of Broad street, leading over to the south Borne bridge, was filled with negroes digging and working, was all torn up, was very rough, and stones and curbing were lying along in said street way. Petitioner thereupon proceeded to turn a little to the right and go over to the car, which was standing on the north end of the bridge, by attempting to step from off the sidewalk at the corner of the sidewalk on Broad street and Birst avenue, down on to the street, and as petitioner proceeded to step off said sidewalk down to the street, which said street had been excavated for the purpose of paving the same, the distance from-said sidewalk to the street below being about two feet, petitioner’s foot caught on the curbing of said sidewalk, which said curbing extended two or three inches above said sidewalk, and petitioner was thrown from said sidewalk down on to said street below, and injured as hereinafter set forth. Petitioner shows that there was a single plank placed upon planks or blocks leading from the sidewalk on Broad street over to the sidewalk on said bridge; that said plank was some six inches wide, and that it would have been folly for petitioner to try to walk the same; that the course which petitioner attempted to pursue was the only one which petitioner could reasonably take; that the other pedestrians along said street followed the course which petitioner was attempting to take. Petitioner shows that she is an elderly woman, seventy years of age; that her sight is dim, and that she did not see the curbing projecting above said sidewalk; that she was looking down into the street at the time of said injury; she shows she was in the exercise of reasonable care for her own safety.” “She shows that the city was negligent in permitting and allowing said curbing to be and remain in said condition; that said curbing had been in said condition for months prior to said injury; that it was negligence in the city in blockading said street in said condition.” The petition, specifies the injuries sustained, and sets out a copy of a demand made on the city for pajunent of damages.

Opinion:
Hnm, C. J.
Tlie allegations of the plaintiff's petition fail to set out a cause of action, and the lower court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer and dismissing the petition.
Judgment affirmed. Russell, J., dissents.
Bubanks & Mebane, for plaintiff, cited Dempsey v. Borne, 94 Ga. 420.
W. J. Nunnally, for defendant.