Ballard v. Manhattan Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | 29340. |
| Citation | 98 P.2d 1112,186 Okla. 506,1940 OK 60 |
| Parties | BALLARD v. MANHATTAN CONST. CO. et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The liability of a municipal corporation for injuries from defects or obstructions in its streets is for negligence only; it is not an insurer of the safety of travelers, but is required to exercise ordinary care to maintain its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for travel by those using them in a proper manner.
2. A wooden incline four feet in length, extending from the end of a temporary sidewalk six inches in height to the level of the street, and not provided with handrails or cleats across the floor thereof, held not so negligently constructed as to render the builder thereof, or the municipality permitting its use, liable in damages to a person injured by falling thereon.
3. When the evidence, with all the inferences which the jury could reasonably draw therefrom, is insufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff, the trial court should direct a verdict for defendant.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Warren H. Edwards Special Judge.
Action by Mrs. A. M. Ballard against the Manhattan Construction Company and others for personal injuries sustained in fall on temporary sidewalk at place where the named defendant was constructing a building. From a verdict in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Sam S Gill, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Rainey Flynn, Green & Anderson, of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error Manhattan Construction Co., a corporation, and Katz Cut Rate Drug Co., a corporation.
A. L. Jeffrey and Leon Shipp, both of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error Oklahoma City, a municipal corporation.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, Mrs. A. M. Ballard, for damages for personal injuries. A verdict for defendants was directed by the trial court, and plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff's sole contention, that the trial court erred in directing the verdict, requires a brief summary of the evidence. The accident occurred at about 6 P. M.
August 12, 1936. Defendant Manhattan Construction Co. was engaged in the construction of a building in Oklahoma City for defendant Katz Cut Rate Drug Co., and had constructed, under a permit issued by the defendant City, a temporary wooden sidewalk along the north side of the building site. This walk was about 42 inches wide and 6 inches high, and was placed in the street just off the curb. At the east end was an incline some four feet long. This incline was floored with planks twelve inches in width, laid lengthwise, and ran from the end of the temporary walk, six inches above the pavement, to the street. Plaintiff, going east over the temporary sidewalk, slipped and fell on this incline. She testified that she was walking carefully, that she stepped on the incline and slipped and fell, that it was slick, and that there were no handrails at the sides of the incline to catch hold of. On cross examination, defendants put in evidence the petition filed in a previous suit over the same accident, in which plaintiff stated that she slipped on a tinfoil candy wrapper, and she admitted that she so testified in that case. She also made the same statement to her physician when she gave him a history of the injury. Another witness for plaintiff, a carpenter, testified that the incline should have been provided with handrails or cleats across it to prevent people from slipping.
For the defendants, the city building inspector testified that the temporary sidewalk was constructed in compliance with the city ordinances governing the erection thereof, and that he inspected and approved it when it was finished. He further testified that the incline was safer than a step, was properly constructed, and was not in the least respect dangerous; that handrails were not necessary, and he did not require them to be erected on the sides because it would be necessary to brace them, and the braces would extend into the street, and tend to further obstruct traffic. The defendants also introduced in evidence a copy of the city ordinance governing the erection of temporary sidewalks around buildings in the course of construction. Such ordinance provided for railings only where there were excavations on either side of the temporary sidewalk. It is not contended that there was an excavation on either side of the incline on which plaintiff fell.
Plaintiff's petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial