City and County of Denver v. Hatter
| Decision Date | 01 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | 9512. |
| Citation | 68 Colo. 194,188 P. 728 |
| Parties | CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER v. HATTER. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; A. Watson McHendrie, Judge.
Action by Clara K. Hatter against the City and County of Denver. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
James A. Marsh and Jacob J. Lieberman, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Henry E. May, of Denver, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error sued the city for personal injuries resulting from her fall over an obstruction in the sidewalk, and had judgment.
It appears that something more than a year prior to the accident a part of the sidewalk on Colfax avenue between Pennsylvania street and Pearl street had been relaid in concrete, and that from the end of the new walk to the old flagging there was a space eight or nine inches wide on which there was no walk. The flagging was, according to the evidence, from an inch and a quarter to two and a half inches higher than said uncovered space. Plaintiff caught her foot on the exposed edge of flagging and fell down, thus receiving the injuries for which she seeks damages. The fall occurred in the evening after dark, the nearby street lamps not being at the time lighted.
The city contends that the court erred in not granting a motion for a nonsuit, and in refusing certain requested instructions. As to the first proposition, it is said that the projection of the flagging above the level of the walk west of it was so small that the court should have held it not such a defect as the city was required to correct; in other words, the walk was reasonably safe, and that there was, therefore, nothing to submit to the jury.
It is evident that each case must be determined on the facts in evidence; there being no general rule which may be applied to all cases. If the facts are such that reasonable men might properly draw different inferences therefrom, it is a case for the jury.
Counsel urge that the case is governed by the ruling in Pueblo v Smith, 57 Colo. 500, 143 P. 281, but we do not agree with that contention. There Smith was riding a bicycle on the driveway of a viaduct on which new planking had recently been laid, the planks running lengthwise of the roadway. Smith was turning from the street car tracks when his wheel struck the raised edges of one of the planks, and he was thrown down. It does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchholz v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...Junction v. Lashmett, 126 Colo. 256, 247 P.2d 909; Arps v. City and County of Denver, 82 Colo. 189, 257 P. 1094; City and County of Denver v. Hatter, 68 Colo. 194, 188 P. 728; Denver City Tramway Co. v. Wright, 47 Colo. 366, 107 P. 1074; Nichols v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 44 Colo. 501, 98 ......
-
Parker v. City and County of Denver
...as was the case in Pueblo v. Smith, supra. Each case must be determined on the facts in evidence. (City and County of) Denver v. Hatter, 68 Colo. 194, 188 P. 728.' 'With the principle thus announced in mind, we think it an unreasonable construction of the opinion to say that it lays down th......
-
Nelson v. City and County of Denver, 14949.
... ... [City and County of] ... Denver, supra, and sometimes the defect is such that, as a ... matter of law, it is not actionable, as was the case in [City ... of] Pueblo v. Smith, supra. Each case must be determined on ... the facts in evidence. [City and County of] Denver v ... Hatter, 68 Colo. 194, 188 P. 728.' ... With ... the principle thus announced in mind, we think it an ... unreasonable constrction of the opinion to say that it lays ... down the proposition that, whether permitting an inequality ... or raised block in a sidewalk, constitutes actionable ... ...