Graham v. City of Charlotte
Decision Date | 20 December 1923 |
Docket Number | 443. |
Parties | GRAHAM v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Webb, Judge.
Action by Eugene B. Graham, Jr., against the City of Charlotte. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.
The material facts are as follows:
Eugene B. Graham, Jr., the plaintiff, testified, in part, as follows:
S. S. Sherrill testified, in part, as follows:
"I am a mechanical engineer, graduate of Clemson College. I was driving the truck in question which belonged to my father. On that night I happened to be driving the truck, as Miss Alexander and I had arranged to give a party for Miss Helen Fewell of Rock Hill. I furnished the truck at the request of Miss Alexander and drove it. She invited the guests. The seats were just automobile seats placed around the edge. I put them there, placed on either side and behind. I have a diagram of the truck, and also the dimensions of this bridge, railing, and posts, as they existed at the time of this injury, and also as to the location of the parties on this truck at the time of the injury. The blueprint you show me is a correct diagram and truly represents the place where the truck struck the westerly post. [ Witness here draws a diagram on the floor.] The line nearest the jury box is the outside railing; there is a hand railing along there; that is on the northerly side. I took the measurements on October 15, 1921. The conditions were the same immediately after the injury. Before the night of the injury I didn't know anything particular about the relative location of the pilaster and side railing with reference to the curb of the street. The line nearest the jury box is the hand railing on the north side of the bridge. The railing is concrete, with a four-inch channel brace under it. If the curbing on the easterly and westerly sides of the street were to continue, the street line would run parallel to this line; that is, parallel to the outside line. The westerly pilaster extends from the curb, if it were extending in a straight line, 22 inches, plus or minus, into the street. By plus or minus, I mean that the measurement is not exact. On the easterly end of the bridge the post extends out beyond the curb line into the street 15 inches. The dimensions of the pilasters are approximately 18 inches square. The rail between the pilasters is approximately 12 inches wide. The diagram here represents the truck at the point I suppose it struck. I examined it the next day after the injury. Figure 1 represents myself driving, No. 2 Miss Alexander, No. 3 Mr. Graham, No. 4 Miss Fewell, and No. 5 Mr. Marsh. I had kerosene lights on the truck, standard lights for trucks. The bed was 6 feet 1 inch wide; there is a standard--they make them even wider than that. I put those cushions on it. As we approached the Seventh street bridge the truck was running about 15 or 18 miles an hour. The truck is regulated to a maximum speed of from 16 to 18 miles. It will not run any faster than that. The motor will be cut off if it exceeds that speed. The motor was running at that time. As we approached that bridge there were no lights there. You could just see a bridge and that was all, and you just assumed that the railing was there. On account of the condition of the night, and the lights, or the lack of them, I couldn't see the location of these pilasters. I didn't know that the pilasters on that bridge next to the traveled way of the street extended out into the street beyond the curb line. I was not able to ascertain that fact that night. As I was driving along I was just using ordinary precautions of driving, watching the road and seeing if there were any rough places--to get out of them. I was looking ahead. It was rough. The street had a hole in it, and I turned to miss it. I can't say exactly what the dimensions of that hole was. I would say it was 8 or 10 inches wide, about a foot or two feet long, and 1 1/2 or 2 inches deep. When I saw that hole I swerved to the right; I don't think it was but very little. I can't say whether I missed the hole. At the time I did not discover that any part of the car had struck the westerly pilaster....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ferguson v. City of Asheville
... ... 110, 52 S.E. 309; Smith v. Winston, 162 N.C ... 50, 77 S.E. 1093; Alexander v. Statesville, 165 N.C ... 527, 81 S.E. 763; Sehorn v. Charlotte, 171 N.C. 540, ... 88 S.E. 782; Graham v. Charlotte, 186 N.C. 649, 120 ... S.E. 466; Willis v. New Bern, 191 N.C. 507, 132 S.E ... 286; Michaux ... ...
-
Haney v. Town of Lincolnton
... ... consequence had hitherto occurred ... The ... city electrician testified that there was one street light in ... the neighborhood of this ... municipality acts in a governmental capacity, Graham v ... Charlotte, 186 N.C. 649, 120 S.E. 466; Willis v ... New Bern, 191 N.C. 507, 132 S.E ... ...
-
Millar v. Town of Wilson
... ... property. Parks v. Princeton, 217 N.C. 361, 8 S.E.2d ... 217; Hodges v. Charlotte, 214 N.C. 737, 200 S.E ... 889; Lewis v. Hunter, 212 N.C. 504, 193 S.E. 814; ... Scales v ... function. Sandlin v. Wilmington, 185 N.C. 257, 116 ... S.E. 733, and cases cited; Graham v. Charlotte, 186 ... N.C. 649, 120 S.E. 466; Willis v. New Bern, 191 N.C ... 507, 132 S.E. 286; ... undertaking to make [222 N.C. 343] safe that which was unsafe ... and to protect the city against liability for failure to ... maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition. This act ... ...
-
Hunt v. City of High Point
...against appellee. Willis v. New Bern, supra; Speas v. Greensboro, supra; Comer v. Winston-Salem, 178 N.C. 383, 100 S.E. 619; Graham v. Charlotte, supra; Michaux v. Rocky Mount, supra; Hamilton v. Rocky Mount, 199 N.C. 504, 154 S.E. 844. It is the existence of the danger, not its origin, wit......