Brady v. City Of Randleman
Decision Date | 01 May 1912 |
Parties | BRADY. v. CITY OF RANDLEMAN et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Municipal Coepobations (§ 797*)—Injuries in Streets—Negligence—Failure to LiGnT Streets.
Where the street in which plaintiff was injured by being struck by a vehicle, because, as claimed, the streets of the city were not properly lighted, was in good condition, there was no breach of duty by the city giving right of action in failing to sufficiently light the streets.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent Dig. § 1656; Dec. Dig. § 797.*]
2. Electricity (§ 16*)—Negligence of Power Company—Liability.
A power company, under a contract to light the streets of a city only at the places designated by the city authorities, was not negligent in not furnishing lights, where not requested by the city to do so.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Electricity, Cent. Dig. § 9; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Randolph County; Daniels, Judge.
Action by B. B. Brady against the City of Randleman and another. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
E. Moffitt and J. T. Brittain, for appellant.
H. M. Robins, for appellees.
There was evidence tending to show that on July 5, 1909, about 9 o'clock p. m., plaintiff, pursuing his regular occupation, was taking the United States mail in a hand car from the post office to the railroad station in the town of Randleman, and at the time was on Depot street, in said town, when he was run into by a horse and buggy, driven by a third person, and seriously injured. The ordinance prohibited carts of the kind from being on the sidewalk; and plaintiff, with his cart, was, at the time of the injury, in the street proper or driveway.
It appears that the defendant Power Company was under contract to supply lights for the town at a specified rate; the poles and lights to be erected and placed under the direction and supervision of the board of aldermen and the street committee. The lights to be turned on not later than half an hour after sundown, and to be kept in action "until 12 o'clock, except on nights when the moonlight would render the electric lights useless." That the arrangement was just being entered upon, and all the lights required had not been placed. That Main street was lighted to the depot or station, and one of the lights on that street was as near as 75 feet; but the effect was very much destroyed by the intervening buildings. That a light was put on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morton v. Washington Light & Water Co.
...Cas. 643; Wood v. Kincaid, 144 N.C. 395, 57 S.E. 4; Clark v. Bonsal, 157 N.C. 275, 72 S.E. 954, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 191; Brady v. Randleman, 159 N.C. 436, 74 S.E. 811, and in Jones v. Water Co., 135 N.C. 554, 47 615. In the last case the contract was similar to the one now before us and the......
-
Millar v. Town of Wilson
... ... undertaking to make [222 N.C. 343] safe that which was unsafe ... and to protect the city against liability for failure to ... maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition. This act ... Johnson v ... Raleigh, 156 N.C. 269, 72 S.E. 368; Brady v ... Randleman, 159 N.C. 434, 74 S.E. 811. If recovery is had ... it is for the failure of the ... ...
-
Hunt v. City of High Point
... ... under the legal necessity of lighting its streets at all, it ... is under no obligation to light them at points of danger, ... citing Brady v. Randleman, 159 N.C. 434, 74 S.E ... 811; White v. New Bern, 146 N.C. 447, 59 S.E. 992, ... 13 L.R.A., N.S., 1166, 125 Am.St.Rep. 476. Well ... ...
- Williamson v. Bitting