Carroll v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1913 |
| Docket Number | 19,303 |
| Citation | 61 So. 752,132 La. 683 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. NEW ORLEANS RY. & LIGHT CO. et al |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
A street railway company is not responsible for a hole or depression in a street several feet beyond the space the company is bound to keep in good order and repair, pursuant to city ordinances.
A depression in a unpaved street, about two or three feet long two feet wide, and four or five inches deep, caused by the sinking of the filling above a water pipe, is not such a dangerous excavation as to make it unsafe for the conductor of a street car to let off passengers at night, at their own request, at a point six or eight feet from the depression, especially where there was no occasion for them to walk in the middle of the street in order to reach the nearest crossing.
Holes and depressions in a dirt highway may be reasonably expected, especially during the winter season, and the municipality, without notice, actual or constructive, is not liable in damages for injury sustained by a pedestrian, who elected to walk at night in the middle of the street, and stepped into a depression caused by the sinking of the surface over a water pipe.
Dart, Kernan & Dart, of New Orleans, for appellant New Orleans Ry. & light co.
I. D. Moore, City Atty., and John J. Reilley, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellant City of New Orleans.
Lyle Saxon, of New Orleans, for appellee.
The plaintiff claims $ 10,000 damages for personal injuries against the defendant Railway Company (hereinafter called the Railway Company), the city of New Orleans (hereinafter called the City), and the sewerage and water board of the city of New Orleans (hereinafter called the Board) jointly and severally.
The claim is predicated on an accident which happened to the plaintiff on February 6, 1910, at 9:30 p. m., immediately after she had alighted from a Prytania street car near the corner of Napoleon avenue, by reason of her stepping into an excavation in Prytania street, near the railway track, thereby dislocating her knee. Plaintiff alleges liability on the part of the Railway Company by reason of the fact that the conductor of the car was careless and negligent in allowing plaintiff to alight in an unsafe place, causing her to step into said excavation, and because it was the duty of the Railway Company under its franchise to keep their tracks and streets alongside thereof in good order and in a safe condition. Plaintiff alleges liability on the part of the City, because it failed to perform the municipal duty of keeping the street in good order and safe for pedestrians, and to notice and repair the excavation, which had been there for some time.
Plaintiff alleges liability on the part of the Board on the ground that the excavation was made by some of its workmen, and they failed to properly fill it and tamp it, so as to make it safe.
The Railway Company pleaded the general issue, and averred that the injury was not caused through any fault or negligence of the company or its agents or employes, that the plaintiff alighted from the car in a safe place, and that the plaintiff after alighting stepped into a depression in the street, owing to her failure to look where she was going.
The Board answered that it had dug a trench on Prytania street in 1908, and that the same was properly refilled, and averred that, if plaintiff stepped into the depression, it was through her own negligence.
The City answered, averring that, if the plaintiff was injured, it was due to her contributory negligence, and, furthermore, it was the duty of the Railway Company to keep the street in proper repair for a distance of one foot on each side of the track. The City specially denied that the street at the point in question was in a dangerous condition.
The case was tried before a jury which found a verdict for $...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caley v. Kansas City
...the regular stopping place. The street was unpaved, "in which ruts, holes, and depressions might be expected in the winter season." In the Carroll case the street was not and the other facts were entirely dissimilar. In Lynch v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 630, 77 S.W. 100, the car w......
-
Sanders v. Carl Berry Oil Co.
...See Kirk v. Kansas City, Mo.App., 129 S.W.2d 1058; Magennis v. City of Pittsburgh, 352 Pa. 147, 42 A.2d 449; Carroll v. New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 132 La. 683, 61 So. 752; Roberts v. City of Fairborn, 102 Ohio App. 91, 141 N.E.2d 297; 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations Sec. 854. However, re......
-
Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres
...during which the conditions complained of had existed, numberless passengers had entered the cars and not an accident was recorded." In the Carroll case, the following "The place at which the plaintiff alighted was a reasonably safe place, as shown by the fact that many persons had made use......
-
Caley v. K.C., Mo. & K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., 17379.
...the car would be likely to step into the depression is not a reasonably safe place to discharge passengers. In the case of Carroll v. N.O. Ry. & Light Co., 61 So. 752, cited by the street car company, plaintiff's husband caused the conductor of the car to permit her to alight just before th......