City Of Richmond v. Mason

• Citation: 109 Va. 546,65 S.E. 8
• Parties: CITY OF RICHMOND. v. MASON.
• Decision Date: 10 June 1909
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

65 S.E. 8

109 Va. 546

CITY OF RICHMOND.

v.MASON.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 10, 1909.

1. Municipal Corporations (§ 764^*) — Streets—Duty to Keep Safe.

While a municipal corporation is bound to exercise due care to keep its streets and sidewalks reasonably safe for persons exercising ordinary prudence, it is not required to have them so constructed as to secure absolute immunity from danger in using them, nor is it bound to employ the utmost care to that end.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1616; Dec. Dig. § 764.*]

2. Municipal Corporations (§ 821*)—Defective Streets—Liability for Injuries —Negligence.

A municipal corporation is liable for injuries from a defect in a street only where it has been negligent in caring for the street; what constitutes negligence in a particular case being a mixed question of law and fact.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1747-1749; Dec. Dig. § 821.*]

3. Municipal Corporations (§ 763*)—Defective Streets — Annexed Territory — Reasonable Time to Render Safe.

Where a territory is annexed to a city, the city has a reasonable time in which to render the streets therein reasonably safe for travel before it can be held liable for injuries from defects therein.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1615; Dec. Dig. § 763.*]

4. Municipal Corporations (§ 818*)—Defective Streets—Actions for Injuries— Admissibility of Evidence.

In an action against a city for injuries from a defect in a street in territory which had recently been annexed to the city, on the question whether the city at the time of the injury had had a reasonable time in which to render the streets safe so as to render it negligent in failing to do so, evidence was admissible showing the extent of the streets in the annexed territory, their wretched condition when annexed, lack of facilities for lighting, and the practical impossibility for various reasons of repairing and lighting the streets between the time of annexation and the time of accident.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 818.*]

Error to Law and Equity Court of City of Richmond.

Action by Bridget Mason against the City of Richmond. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

H. R. Pollard and Geo. Wayne Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

P. H. C. Cabell and Robert H. Talley, for defendant in error.

KEITH, P. Mrs. Mason instituted her suit in the law and equity court of the city of Richmond to recover damages for an injury sustained by her by stepping into a trench or hole in the roadbed at the point of intersection of N and Thirty-Second streets on the 14th of May, 1907. She recovered a judgment for $1,500, and the case is before us upon a writ of error.

In the course of the trial the city offered witnesses to prove that "it had used reasonable care to place the streets in the annexed territory (the point at which the accident happened having been in the annexed territory) in a reasonably safe condition; that previous to the recent annexation of territory shown in plaintiff's evidence the city had under its care 116 miles of streets, and that by the annexation about 90 miles of streets had been placed under the care of the city; that these 90 miles had been previously in the county of Henrico, and were in a wretched condition for travel; that it was practically impossible between the time of annexation, which occurred on December 6, 1906, and the time of the accident May 14, 1907, to have so repaired and lighted the streets in said territory as to put them in the same condition of safety as the streets in the old territory of the city; that in view of the charge made in one count of the plaintiff's declaration, namely, that the city was negligent in the matter of lighting the street at the point where the accident happened, it was proposed to show that it was practically impossible within the time during which the city had had charge of the annexed territory to erect and install a system of lighting, either gas or electricity, which would have adequately lighted the streets in the annexed territory; that in the old territory therewere in use approximately 900 gas lamps and 695 electric lights; that to equally well light the annexed territory it would be necessary to install therein 574 gas lamps and lay 74 miles of gas mains at an aggregate cost of $105,000; and that 443 electric lights would be necessary, at a cost of $40,000. It was further proposed to introduce an ordinance approved January 21, 1907, in order to show that the city had promptly assumed its responsibility in the annexed territory, and had exercised its option in the matter of making a bond issue of a sum equal to 12 per centum of the assessed value of the real estate within the annexed territory for the purpose of making public improvements therein." It was also proposed to introduce the city engineer, "by whom it would be shown that his department, having charge of the repair and improvement of the streets, had acted promptly and energetically in the matter of repairing and improving the streets in the annexed territory; that, before the introduction of gas mains along the streets of the city, it was necessary by a proper survey of the territory to prepare profiles of grades of the streets therein; that such surveys and maps were essential to ascertain the watersheds, and, after the making of the surveys and maps it would necessarily require time for proper deliberation and study to fix the extent of the watershed in each particular locality; that, until such surveys, maps, and profiles were made, grades could not be established, and, until grades were established, gas mains could not be laid in the streets; that it was a physical impossibility for the city between the time of the annexation and the happening of the accident to have placed the streets in the annexed territory in as safe a condition for the use of the public as the streets were within the old territory of the city. But the plaintiff still objected to the evidence of the witness, and also objected to the introduction of the proposed evidence on the ground that the same was irrelevant and improper, and the court sustained the plaintiff's...