City of Meridian v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 26 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23134 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF MERIDIAN v. PETERSON |
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Crossings over gutters or ditches other than public crossings over street intersections must be kept in reasonable repair.
A municipality is not required to maintain bridges or crossings over gutters or ditches made for draining the streets at other places than the regular public crossings or street intersections, but when a municipality constructs a bridge over a gutter or ditch for draining its streets at places therein other than street intersections, thereby inviting the public to use the same in crossing the street, such bridge must be kept in such reasonable repair by the municipality as not to endanger persons crossing it.
2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Municipality under no obligation to maintain or repair private bridge over ditch in street unless used by general public.
An abutting property owner has the right to construct a bridge over a ditch in a street in front of his premises in order to obtain access thereto from the street, provided it is constructed in such way as not to interfere with the rights of the public; but when such a bridge is constructed by an abutting owner the municipality is under no obligation to maintain or repair it, unless it is of utility to and used by the general public.
3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Directing verdict for municipality for injuries on privately constructed bridge over gutter in street held proper, where of little public utility.
Whether the utility to, and the amount and character of the user by the public generally of a bridge built by a private person over a drain in a street in a municipality are sufficient to cast upon the municipality the duty of repairing the bridge are questions of fact usually for the determination of the jury in an action against the municipality for damages caused by a defect in the bridge; but where it is manifest from the evidence that the bridge is of little public utility, the jury may be directed to return a verdict for the municipality.
APPEAL from circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. J. D FATHERREE, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Ida Peterson against the City of Meridian. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and judgment for defendant.
Judgment reversed.
Amis & Dunn, for appellant.
The principal question is whether where a footbridge is constructed by some private person not at a public crossing, without the authority of the city, over a public drain way in a street between the sidewalk and the traveled way in the street, and has been used for many years by persons in passing from the traveled way in the street to the sidewalk, the city may be held, as for negligence in failing to maintain and keep such bridge in a good state of repair, to a person who is attempting to use such bridge in the nighttime and is injured by reason of a defect which has existed in such bridge for a long period of time.
The case of Crawford v. The City of Griffin, 113 Ga. 562, is almost a parallel on its facts to the case at bar. In that case the bridge in question was constructed by a private person; but it appears from the reported facts that the city had taken up the bridge for the purpose of deepening the ditch, had replaced the same and had subsequently made some repairs upon it, and that some of the public used it. By reason of a defect in the bridge the plaintiff's intestate was injured while attempting to use the bridge in going from the street to the private adjacent property. Recovery was denied on the ground that the bridge was not located at a public crossing, was not constructed by the city and that the city was under no duty to keep the same in repair, even though some of the public used it, because it was not at a public crossing. In the case here the city did not construct the bridge, had never repaired it, and had never done anything in recognition of its existence as a public way across the drainage ditch in the street. In this respect the case differs on the facts from the Georgia case. The bridge was located midway a block, and in the very nature of things could not have been considered a public utility over which the city exercised jurisdiction. The failure of the city to take cognizance of the existence of the bridge, how so ever long continued, could not impress it with the character of a public utility, even though it were used generally by persons in that vicinity in passing from the street to the sidewalk.
It was contended in the court below that this court had declined to follow the rule announced in the case of Crawford v. The City of Griffin, supra, in the case of Hardin v. The City of Corinth, 105 Miss. 99. But it seems to us, on the contrary, that the court clearly recognized the soundness of the rule stated in Crawford v. The City of Griffin, and would have followed it in the Corinth case had the facts of the two cases been similar.
In 4 R. C. L., page 232, it is stated: Citing Joliet v. Verley, 35 Ill. 58; Com. v. Charlestown, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 180; Green v. Bridge Creek, 38 Wis. 449. In the OPINION in Commonwealth v. Charlestown, the court said:
The city of Meridian was under no legal obligation to construct a bridge at the point where the bridge in question was located. It had not in fact done so. No fact from which an implied acceptance of the bridge on the part of the city as a public crossing appears in the record. While it has been held by this court (Brahan v. Meridian Light & Railway Company, 121 Miss. 269), that it was not negligence for a person to cross the street directly in front of her house instead of going to a street crossing and then going down the sidewalk on the other side, in nowise conflicts with the rule for which we are contending; nor does it by inference require a municipality to so construct streets and sidewalks as to render them passable by pedestrians attempting to cross at any or all points. The right of a city to construct drainways and to erect or to permit the erection of obstructions in certain portions of the street not needed for public travel is undoubted, and this court has so held in the case of Gulfport and Mississippi Coast Traction Company v. Manuel, 85 So. 308.
The city of Meridian had the right in the improvement and maintenance of the street to construct and to keep open a ditch for drainage purposes between the intersection and crossings of the streets with other streets. There is no complaint or proof that the city was guilty of any negligence in this regard.
It was contended in the court below that even though the city did not construct the bridge, that if it had been used constantly and regularly by the public for a number of years, and that during said time the said bridge appeared to be a portion of the street intended for public use, and that the city authorities had knowledge of such use of the bridge, that it was the duty of the city to maintain and to keep in such state of repair as that it might be used with reasonable safety for such purposes; and that if it failed to do so, it was guilty of negligence. And the court so instructed the jury on behalf of the plaintiff. This contention is palpably unsound and the court erred in instructing the jury that it was the city's duty under such circumstances to keep the bridge in repair. Stainback v. The City of Meridian, 79 Miss. 447.
We insist that the court erred in refusing to grant the peremptory instruction to find for the defendant as requested. The material facts in evidence, it seems to us, are undisputed, and fail to show any liability on the part of the defendant city to the plaintiff. However, if we are mistaken as to this, it certainly was error on the part of the court to grant instructions requested by the plaintiff to which we have heretofore called attention and especially to have refused the only other instruction requested by the defendant. To require a city to do more than to maintain reasonably safe sidewalks on each side of the street, and reasonably safe cross-walks at intersections of streets for the use of pedestrians is going far beyond reasonable limits. To require cities to keep the drain ditches located within the streets outside of the traveled way covered or bridged, so as that a pedestrian might conveniently pass from one side of the street to the other at any point, would require the doing of an impossible thing.
We therefore submit that the verdict of the jury was for an excessive amount and resulted from sympathy and not from an unbiased and deliberate consideration of the evidence as to the extent of the injury sustained by the plaintiff.
Parker, Simmons & Snow, for appellee.
The elements of negligence and liability causing this injury are not disputed or contested except one point, and that is that the city did not build this bridge and had not exercised ownership over it. And the defendant undertakes to escape liability on the theory that a municipality is not required to keep in repair a bridge situated within the street, and used constantly and generally by the public for a great...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxedon v. City of Corinth
...notice of them. Craver v. Jackson, 82 Miss. 583; Whitfield v. Meridian, 66 Miss. 570; Hardin v. City of Corinth, 105 Miss. 99; Meridian v. Peterson, 132 Miss. 7. It well settled that it is the duty of municipal or quasi-municipal corporation to erect railings or barriers along the highway a......