Court Opinion

ID: 9828067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:04:25.885246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:42.859735
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We held in our former opinion that the parkways of sidewalks are as much parts of the public ways of cities as are their paved portions, or as are the streets, and they exist for the use of the public. We did not hold, however, that the public had the right to make the same use of the parkways of sidewalks as of the paved portions any more than that the public had the right to make the same use of them as of the streets. We held, in effect, that it was not true, as a matter of law, that the right of the public to use said parkway did not include the right to walk thereon. It was a question of fact in this case whether the City of Pelly used ordinary care to keep the sidewalk in question, inclusive of its parkway, in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances.
Appellee City of Pelly’s motion for rehearing refused.
Refused.