Court Opinion

ID: 9831151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:51:38.793818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:31.910167
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a special pleading, the appellant alleged that it was not its duty but the duty of the abutting property owners to repair the sidewalk, but it did not allege any other reason or excuse for failing to look after the condition of the sidewalk. On the trial the only evidence introduced to explain such failure was the testimony of its street superintendent, who had held that position for twenty-nine years, as follows: “Q. Have you ever constructed any sidewalks there? A. Nothing to do with it — and we don’t construct side‘ walks or repair them unless we would break some portion of them with our street equipment and of course then we would repair it.”
If the city’s failure to exercise supervision over the sidewalk was due to lack of funds available for that purpose, or any other facts that would be sufficient in law to excuse such failure, such facts were peculiarly within the knowledge of its officers, and the burden was upon it to plead and prove the same, in order to escape the prima facie case of liability made out by plaintiff. We do not understand that a municipality can escape its legal duty to exercise ordinary care to keep its public streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for public use after it has acquired jurisdiction over them by arbitrarily refusing to recognize such duty. City of Austin v. Ritz, 72 Tex. 391, 9 8. W. *586884 ; 43 C. J. p. 987, 988; 6 McQuillin Municipal Corp., §§ 2743, 2744, 2750.
The discretionary powers of a municipality referred to in City of Waco v. Darnell (Tes. Com. App.) 35 S.W.(2d) 134, and authorities there cited, do not go to that extent.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.