City of Louisville v. Hans

• Decision Date: 02 December 1915
• Citation: 180 S.W. 65,167 Ky. 160
• Parties: CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. HANS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

180 S.W. 65

167 Ky. 160

CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. HANS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 2, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Fourth Division.

Action by Earl Hans against the City of Louisville and another. From a judgment for the plaintiff against the City of Louisville it appeals. Affirmed.

J. W S. Clements and Pendleton Beckley, both of Louisville, for appellant.

Robert L. Page and E. G. Hill, both of Louisville, for appellee.

CARROLL J.

Earl Hans, a boy about 11 years of age, fell over a garbage can filled with garbage which had been placed on a sidewalk in the city of Louisville and sustained severe injuries. To recover damages for the injuries so sustained, he brought suit against the city and Margaret Cook, the person who had placed the garbage can on the sidewalk. On a trial of the case there was a verdict against the city, and a verdict for Mrs. Cook, and the city appeals.

It appears from the evidence that the street cleaning department goes about three times a week to remove garbage that has been placed in receptacles on sidewalks or in alleys. It is also shown that the garbage can in question, which was a large pan with a handle, was placed on the sidewalk near the curbing early on Saturday morning, and remained there until the following Monday night, when the boy, on his way home from a grocery store, in a drizzling rain, stumbled over it and fell.

One ground urged for reversal is that the garbage can on the sidewalk was not such an obstruction as to put upon the city notice of its presence, and so the city could not be held liable for the accident.

The evidence shows that the garbage can was of good size, and could easily be seen by any person whose duties required him to take any sort of notice of obstructions in the street, and that it remained in the same place three days. Under repeated decisions of this court this was such an obstruction of the street as rendered the city liable in damages to any person who, in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, stumbled or fell over it; and the jury, under appropriate instructions, found that the obstruction had continued for such a length of time that by the exercise of ordinary care its presence could have been known to the agents or employés of the city whose duty it was to look after the safety of the streets.

Another reason advanced why a directed verdict should have...