City Of Rome v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 24 December 1909
• Docket Number: (No. 2,174.)
• Citation: 7 Ga.App. 244,66 S.E. 627
• Parties: CITY OF ROME. v. BROOKS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

(7 Ga.App. 244)

66 S.E. 627

CITY OF ROME.

v.BROOKS.

(No. 2, 174.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Dec. 24, 1909.

1. Municipal Corporations (§ 821*)—Defective Street—Notice of Defect—Question for Jury.

It is a jury question as to what length of time a defect in a street must exist to charge a municipality with knowledge of negligence. En-right v. Atlanta, 78 Ga. 289.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1750; Dec. Dig. § 821.*]'

2. Municipal Corporations (§ 817*) — Defective Street—Notice to City—Presumptions.

If a water meter box upon a sidewalk is for a considerable time kept alternately in a safe and in a dangerous condition (for such a length of time as that, if the condition was dangerous all the time, notice of the defect could be presumed),-it would not be necessary for one injured by reason of such alternating danger to show notice or knowledge on the part of the municipality upon each recurrence of the danger; but, if the condition of the danger is such that safety and danger exist intermittently, it will be presumed that the recurrence of the danger was to be anticipated. Chapman v. Macon, 55 Ga. 500.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1725; Dec. Dig. § 817.*]

3. Municipal Cobpobations (§ 821*) — Defective Street — Injury to Traveler — Contributory Negligence.

Although the plaintiff in this case might have observed the defect in the sidewalk some time before, she might also reasonably have supposed that the municipality had remedied the defect in the water meter box, and it was a question for the jury to determine, under all circumstances, whether the plaintiff was so negligent as to defeat her recovery.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1754-1756; Dec. Dig. § 821.*]

4. Verdict—Propriety.

The damages were not excessive, nor the verdict contrary to law, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Floyd County; Harper Hamilton, Judge.

Action by Mrs. J. R Brooks against the City of Rome. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

W. J. Nunnally, for plaintiff in error. Seaborn & Barry Wright, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL, J. Judgment affirmed.