City of Denver v. Aaron
Decision Date | 11 March 1895 |
Citation | 6 Colo.App. 232,40 P. 587 |
Parties | CITY OF DENVER v. AARON. [1] |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.
Action by Mendall Aaron against the city of Denver for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A.B Seaman and Louis K. Pratt, for appellant.
Sullivan & May and Charles O. Patton, for appellee.
Mendall Aaron brought this action against the city of Denver, a municipal corporation, to recover damages for injuries received by him by reason of the dangerous condition in which an excavation in one of its streets, made by the Denver Water Company, was suffered to remain. The facts in evidence were undisputed, and the court directed a verdict in plaintiff's favor for such amount as, in the opinion of the jury from the evidence, would compensate him for his injuries. The instructions upon the question of damages are unobjectionable. They correctly stated the law applicable to the facts, and the decision of the case here turns upon the action of the court in directing a verdict. The facts are as follows: On the 10th day of April, 1890, an ordinance was adopted by the city council of the defendant granting to the Denver Water Company the right and privilege of laying down, continuing, and maintaining water pipes valves, hydrants, and apparatus for the conveyance and distribution of water in, upon, along, and through certain of the streets of the city, including the street upon which the injuries were received. Section 3 of this ordinance reads as follows: The excavation in question was made in pursuance of the grant contained in the ordinance, but, although it was filled to the level of the surface of the street, and seemed to be safe and in good condition, the filling was loosely thrown in, so that wheels of vehicles upon striking it would immediately sink; thus leaving the place in a dangerous condition, and all the more dangerous because it was apparently safe. On the 18th day of June, 1891, some days after the filling was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ledbetter v. City of Great Falls, 8882
...the mischief. This is not only the rule of the great weight of authority, but is manifestly just and reasonable.' In City of Denver v. Aaron, 6 Colo.App. 232, 40 P. 587, 588, the Supreme Court of Colorado said: 'The duty of keeping its streets in repair and in reasonably safe condition for ......
-
W. T. Grant Co. v. Casady, 15775.
...for travel thereon, and this duty cannot be avoided, suspended, delegated, or passed on to others by any act of the municipality. City of Denver v. Aaron, supra; Dunbar Olivieri, 97 Colo. 381, 50 P.2d 64; Grooms v. Union Guardian Trust Co., 309 Mich. 437, 15 N.W.2d 698; Hendley v. Daw Drug ......
-
Maring v. City of Billings
...of its nondelegable duty to keep the streets in a safe condition. Spiker v. Ottumwa, 193 Iowa, 844, 186 N.W. 465; City of Denver v. Aaron, 6 Colo.App. 232, 40 P. 587; Tabor v. City of Buffalo, 136 A.D. 258, 120 1089. Section 539 of Ordinance 1177 of the city of Billings provides that no per......
-
Luxford v. City and County of Denver
... ... benefit of the public. The case is therefore ruled by our own ... decisions and the liability to the plaintiff, if any, is that ... of the railroad alone, which cannot by any legitimate ... reasoning, be properly saddled upon the city ... [176 P. 836.] ... Denver ... v. Aaron, 6 Colo.App. 232, 40 P. 587, relied upon by ... plaintiff, is based upon the failure of the municipality to ... perform its affirmative duty to keep its streets in a ... reasonably safe condition for travel. That question is not ... even remotely involved in this controversy and that decision ... ...