City Of Richmond v. Lambert

• Decision Date: 09 June 1910
• Citation: 111 Va. 174,68 S.E. 276
• Parties: CITY OF RICHMOND v. LAMBERT.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

68 S.E. 276

111 Va. 174

CITY OF RICHMOND

v.LAMBERT.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 9, 1910.

Municipal Corporations (§ 777*)—Obstruction in Street—Injury to Pedestrian— Liability Therefor.

A step 4% inches high and 10 1/2 inches

wide, close up to a building in front of which it is placed, and used as a means of access to it from the street, does not constitute an unlawful obstruction, and does not interfere to an appreciable or unreasonable extent with the use of the sidewalk, so as to sustain an action by a pedestrian injured by stumbling over it.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1031; Dec. Dig. § 777.*]

Error to Circuit Court of City of Richmond.

Action by one Lambert against the City of Richmond and others. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant city brings error. Reversed.

H. R. Pollard and G. W. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

John A. Lamb and S. A. Anderson, for defendant in error.

KEITH, P. This is an action brought by Lambert against the city of Richmond to recover damages for an injury which was received by him from a fall, due as he contends to the negligence of the city of Richmond in failing to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition. The particular ground of complaint stated in the declaration is that there was a step on "Williamsburg avenue, one of the streets of the city, between Louisiana and Graham streets, in front of the building known as "No. 3822, " over which the plaintiff stumbled and fell, and received the injury of which he complains. In obedience to a provision of the charter of the city of Richmond, Segar Waters, Orelia Waters, and A. Anderson, who were the "owners, users, or lessees of the property" in front of which the step was situated, were made parties defendant, and such proceedings were had as resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $2,000, and the case is before us upon a writ of error.

During the progress of the trial there were many exceptions taken to the rulings of the court; but in the view which we take of the case we deem it unnecessary to consider but one of them, a decision of which will be conclusive of the controversy.

The court was asked to instruct the jury as follows: "The court instructs the jury that though they believe from the evidence that the step in the declaration mentioned was an encroachment upon the street, and that the plaintiff received injury by coming in contact therewith as in the declaration alleged, and that the same was the proximate cause of the accident, yet, inasmuch as the evidence in the case as to the nature, size, character, and use of the said step is clear, and is without conflict, the court instructs the jury that as a question of law the said step was not such an obstruction in the street as to render the city of Richmond liable for the injury resulting therefrom, and they should find a verdict for the defendant the city of Richmond."

The step in question was 4 1/2inches highand 10 1/2 inches wide,, was close up to the building in front of which it was placed, and was used as a means of access to it. We are of opinion that such a step, in such a place, did not constitute an unlawful obstruction in the street, and did not interfere to an appreciable or unreasonable extent with the use of the sidewalk.

In Parrish v. City of Huntington, 57 W. Va. 286, 50 S. E. 416, it is said:

"A municipal corporation is not an insurer against accidents upon streets or sidewalks. Nor is every defect therein, though it may cause the injury sued for, actionable. It is sufficient if the street is in a reasonably safe condition for travel in the ordinary modes, with ordinary care, by day or night; and whether so or not is a practical question, to be determined in each case by its particular circumstances.

"Where the evidence is without...