Gilbreath v. City Of Greensboro
| Decision Date | 10 November 1910 |
| Citation | 153 N.C. 396,69 S.E. 268 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GILBREATH v. CITY OF GREENSBORO. |
1. Municipal Corporations (§ 759*)—Treatment of Place as Public Street—Effect on City's Liability for Injuries.
If the authorities of a city have treated a place as a public street, taking charge of it and regulating it as they do other streets, and a person is injured in consequence of the negligent manner in which the city maintains it, the city when sued for such injury cannot question the regularity of the proceedings by which the place became a street or the authority by which it was originally established.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1595-1600; Dec. Dig. § 759.*]
2. Municipal Corporations (§ 821*)—Treatment of Place as Public Street—Question of Fact.
Whether a city has assumed such control of a place in question as to make it liable for an injury therein as for an injury on a public street is a question of fact.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1746; Dec. Dig. § S21.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; W. J. Adams, Judge.
Action by C. M. Gilbreath against the City of Greensboro. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Shaw & Hines, for appellant.
R. C. Strudwick, Stedman & Cooke, and W. P. Bynum, for appellee.
The plaintiff was injured by his wagon running into a hole on Cumberland street, in the defendant city, and throwing him off and running over his leg, which necessitated its amputation.
We are of opinion that the evidence was amply sufficient to establish the fact that the defendant's authorities had several years prior to the injury taken charge of and treated Cumberland street as a public street of the city of Greensboro; that the overseer of streets, an official of said city, had by direction of the street committee and its successor, the street commission of said city, repaired and taken control of that street, and that for some years it had been used as a public street of the city. Upon such evidence, the law is well stated by the leading case of Mayor v. Sheffield, 71 U. S. 189, 18 L. Ed. 416, where it is said: "If the authorities of a city or town have treated a place as a public street, taking charge of it and regulating it as they do other streets, and an individual is injured in consequence of the negligent and careless manner in which this is done, the corporation cannot, when it is sued for such injury, throw ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gallup v. Bliss
...262 P. 154 44 Idaho 756 WILLIAM A. GALLUP, Respondent, v. ADELAIDE BLISS and THE CITY OF EMMETT, a Municipal Corporation, Appellants No. 4587Supreme Court of IdahoOctober 13, 1927 ... 765] and treated Cumberland street as a public street of the ... city of Greensboro; that the overseer of streets, an official ... of said city, had by direction of the street ... the testimony by the jury." (Gilbreath v. City of ... Greensboro, 153 N.C. 396, 69 S.E. 268.) ... The ... judgment is ... ...
- Wood v. Lewey
-
Whitacre v. City of Charlotte
... ... said in New York v. Sheffield, 4 Wall. 189, 71 U.S ... 189, 18 L.Ed. 416, quoted in Gilbreath v ... Greensboro, 153 N.C. 396, 69 S.E. 268, as follows: ... "If the authorities of a city or town have treated a ... place as a public street, ... ...
-
Emanuelson v. Gibbs
...does not necessarily impose a concomitant duty on the public to maintain it." 41 N.C.L.Rev. at 879, citing Gilbreath v. City of Greensboro, 153 N.C. 396, 69 S.E. 268 (1910). Plaintiff, as owner of land which abuts a public way, has a right of access to the public street in the nature of an ......