Bland v. City of Mobile

• Decision Date: 22 December 1904
• Citation: 37 So. 843,142 Ala. 142
• Parties: BLAND v. CITY OF MOBILE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

37 So. 843

142 Ala. 142

BLAND v. CITY OF MOBILE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 22, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Wm. S. Anderson, Judge.

Action by Ellen Bland against the city of Mobile. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on account of falling through a footbridge crossing a gutter in one of the public streets of the city of Mobile. Section 22 of the charter of the city of Mobile of 1901 reads as follows: "No claim against the city of Mobile whether arising ex contractu or ex delicto, shall be sued on until a statement thereof, giving date of accrual, name and residence of original claimant and of assignee, if any circumstances and amount claimed, shall have been filed with the city clerk for consideration of the general council and either rejected by them or held by them for sixty days without action." Acts 1901, p. 2363. Plaintiff sued for $1,000. The complaint contained the following averment "And plaintiff avers that she filed her claim for damages in this case with the general council of the city of Mobile more than sixty days before filing this suit; that said claim was prepared and filed in strict compliance with the ordinance of the city of Mobile, which requires the filing of claims of this character; and that said general council declined to settle with plaintiff and disallowed her claim." Issue was joined on plea of the general issue. The defendant admitted that plaintiff's attorneys had filed with the city clerk of Mobile and presented to the general council the following paper: "Ellen Bland, a highly respectable colored woman, and a resident of this city, makes claim against the city of Mobile for the sum of five hundred dollars, under a statement of facts substantially as follows, to wit: On Friday evening, the 17th of April, 1903, between seven and eight o'clock, claimant undertook to cross one of the city bridges leading from the street to the sidewalk at the southeast corner of Basil and Locust streets. The planks of the bridge were not nailed or secured to the sidewalk, so that when claimant undertook to walk across said bridge one of the planks gave way and slipped, thereby throwing claimant into the gutter or ditch and doing her very serious injury--perhaps of a permanent character. Both of her ankles were severely sprained, she was badly bruised, and her back and one of her hips were so severely wrenched and sprained that she has ever since been confined to her home, and is likely to suffer for many days if not months. Claimant's drug bill and doctor's bill will necessarily be large. She will be unable to perform her usual labor for a long time, and her suffering is very intense; but she is willing to accept the amount stated as a compromise settlement, and in order to avoid litigation, if it shall please the council to act in this matter at once." Plaintiff offered to introduce said claim in evidence as a part of her case, to which defendant objected on the following grounds: "Because it does not comply with the requirements of section 22 of the charter of the city of Mobile; is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent is an offer of compromise, and therefore incompetent...