Yeaw v. Williams

• Citation: 15 R.I. 20,23 A. 33
• Parties: YEAW v. WILLIAMS, TOWN TREASURER. [1]
• Decision Date: 15 May 1885
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

23 A. 33

15 R.I. 20

YEAW v. WILLIAMS, TOWN TREASURER. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

May 15, 1885

Dexter B. Potter, for defendant.

DURFEE C. J.

1. We think the question whether the town was chargeable with culpable neglect in leaving the post where it was before the plaintiff was injured by it was a question of fact for the jury. Doubtless a hitching-post might be located near the traveled part of a road, and just out of it, in a position where it would be so unexposed or so protected that the town would evidently not be at fault for leaving it there, and that the court might properly so instruct the jury. The case at bar was not such a case. In the case at bar the plaintiff's testimony tended to show that the post complained of was the middle one of three, and stood eighteen inches further out into the road than the other two; that the road was level from fence to fence, except a shallow gutter and was traveled throughout its width, except where the posts were; that the plaintiff was driving in the dark at night keeping well to the right, i. e., the side of the posts, for fear of running into something; that a team coming up behind started his horse quickly; and that while he was engaged in reining in his horse he collided with the post. The plaintiff testified that he had long been familiar with the posts, and had had to look out for them, even in the day-time. On the other side testimony was submitted to show that the posts stood on a portion of the highway intended for and used as a sidewalk, at the edge of which there was a gutter four or five inches deep; that the road curved a little at the posts which made the middle post appear to be further out than the other two; and that the wrought or traveled part of the road was about twenty-seven feet wide at the posts. In view of this testimony, and especially in view of the testimony that the middle post was eighteen inches further out than the other two, or on a curve where it would be more exposed, we are not prepared to say that the verdict was against the evidence. It is not enough that there was ample room for travel within the post, if the post was so situated with reference to the general course of travel as to be dangerous, and require unusual precaution. Snow v. Inhabitants, 1 Cush. 443; Chamberlain v. Enfield, 43 N.H. 356; Cassedy v. Stock bridge, 21 Vt. 391; Willey v. Portsmouth, 35 N.H. 304. Indeed, a post may be a dangerous defect, even when it is entirely out of the limits of the highway. Coggswell v. Inhabitants, 4 Cush. 307; Warner v. Holyoke, 112 Mass. 362; Hayden v. Inhabitants, 7 Gray, 338. In Macomber v. City of Taunton, 100 Mass. 255, cited for the town, it did not appear that the post which caused the accident protruded beyond the others, or that there was any bend in the road; and the court, moreover, which sustained the nonsuit, seems to have been a good deal influenced by a Massachusetts statute, which expressly provided that "in the towns the owners of adjoining land, and in the cities the municipal authorities, might construct sidewalks, indicating their width by trees, posts, or curb-stones set at reasonable distances apart, or by a railing erected thereto."

2. The defendant contends that the post was only a concurring cause of the accident, the primary...