Bryan v. Mayor

• Decision Date: 17 April 1893
• Parties: BRYAN. v. MAYOR, ETC., OP THE CITY OP MACON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 S.E. 351

91 Ga. 530

BRYAN.

v.MAYOR, ETC., OP THE CITY OP MACON.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 17, 1893.

Injuries from Defective Streets—Sufficiency of Declaration.

The declaration sets forth a cause of action, the allegations being in substance that, in August, 1891, plaintiff was driving a mule hitched to a buggy in a street of the city of Macon. His mule becoming frightened, he jumped from the buggy; and while his attention was thus directed to his mule, plaintiff, without fault on his part, fell into a hole, —the mouth of a sewer in said street. The sewer was unprotected, and in a dangerous condition, and had been so for 10 days, and its condition was known to the city, to whose negligence it was due. That, in consequence of such fall, he was greatly injured, suffered from concussion of the spine, was unconscious for 24 hours after the injury, suffered great pain, which still continues, and is now totally unfitted for business, and has become liable for $100 for medical attention. At the time of the injury he was 46 years of age, and was earning$200 per month; to his damage ¢15.000, etc.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Macon; J. P. Ross, Judge.

Action by William Bryan against the city of Macon to recover for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from a defective street. There was judgment for defendant, dismissing the action on demurrer to the declaration. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Hardeman & Nottingham, for plaintiff In error.

R. W. Patterson, for defendant in error.

BLECKLEY, C. J. The court erred in dismissing the action on general demurrer to the declaration. Taking the facts, as alleged, to be true, the plaintiff sustained a serious personal injury, while free from fault on his part, by falling into the unprotected mouth of a sewer which opened into one of the public streets of the city, along which he was passing. The dangerous condition of the mouth of the sewer was caused by the negligence of the defendant, was known to it, and had existed for 10 days. The declaration explains how the plaintiff came to be near the mouth of the sewer, and why he did not see it, but fell into it unawares. He was driving along the street; his mule became frightened; he leaped from the buggy, and, while his attention was directed to the frightened mule, he fell into the mouth of the sewer. It is not alleged precisely how the sewer was connected with the street relatively to the position of the opening, but it is alleged that the...