City of Knoxville v. Hood, 6.

• Decision Date: 28 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 6.,6.
• Parties: CITY OF KNOXVILLE v. HOOD (two cases).
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

97 S.W.2d 446

CITY OF KNOXVILLE v. HOOD (two cases).

No. 6.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

March 28, 1936.

Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court October 10 1936.

Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Knox County; L. H. Carlock, Judge.

Actions by Lizzie Hood and by Claude A. Hood against the City of Knoxville, for negligence. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendant appeals in error.

Reversed and dismissed.

Frank Montgomery, of Knoxville, for plaintiff in error.

Hartman, Hartman & Doughty, of Knoxville, for defendants in error.

McAMIS, Judge.

Mrs. Lizzie Hood fell and sustained personal injuries while walking eastwardly upon the sidewalk extending along the south side of Yale avenue in the city of Knoxville. Alleging negligence in the maintenance of the sidewalk, she instituted the present action for damages. Claude Hood, the husband, also instituted suit for loss of services, etc. The two cases were tried together before the circuit court without a jury and judgments went against the city, from both of which it has appealed.

It is shown in proof that the sidewalk where Mrs. Hood fell is six feet wide and is constructed of concrete. According to photographs appearing in the record, expansion joints running crosswise of the walk appear to have been left about three feet apart. At some time prior to the date of the accident, one of the sections became slightly elevated above the adjacent section. By actual measurement, this difference in level varied from ¼ of an inch on the south side of the walk to 11/16 of an inch on the north side. Measurements were made at two intermediate points and showed a difference in elevation of 5/8 of an inch at one of these points and 9/16 of an inch at the other. Mrs. Hood testified she was walking on the south side next to the property line and the elevation at the particular point where she stumbled must have been somewhere between ¼ and 5/8 of an inch. There is also evidence to the effect that there was a cavity about ½ inch in depth and about the size of the toe of a lady's shoe under the top crust of the elevated section. Mrs. Hood testified that it was in this small cavity that she caught the toe of her shoe, causing her to fall.

It is the insistence of the city that if this condition of the sidewalk could be classified as a defect at all, it was too trivial to create any liability for plaintiff's injuries.

The general principles governing the liability of a municipality for failure to properly maintain its streets and sidewalks are too well established to necessitate an extended citation of cases dealing generally with this subject.

In Jackson v. City of Nashville, 17 Tenn. App. 413, 68 S.W.(2d) 137, 138, the rule is stated as follows:

"City is liable for violation of its duty in failing to repair, or in neglecting or permitting obstructions, or in maintaining or permitting dangerous places in streets or sidewalks. * * * `To be actionable the obstruction must be dangerous, and the danger must be such as a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated as a natural and probable result. * * * To establish negligence it must be shown that the injury sustained is one that would probably flow from allowing that...