Lewis v. The City Of Atlanta

• Decision Date: 31 October 1886
• Citation: 77 Ga. 756
• Parties: Lewis. vs. The City of Atlanta.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

77 Ga. 756

Lewis. vs. The City of Atlanta.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

OCTOBER TERM, 1886.

Husband and Wife. Damages. Streets and Sidewalks. Municipal Corporations. Before Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Fulton Superior Court. March Term, 1S86.

Margaret Lewis sued the city of Atlanta and alleged that she was injured while passing along Peachtrce st: eat; that her injuries were because of obstructions left in the street by parties who were paving it, and because the obstructions were not lighted, nor were the street lamps lighted. The evidence need not be stated. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for one hundred dollars. She moved for a new trial on the following grounds:

(1.) Because of the following charge: " If materials for the construction of the sidewalk were properly placed by the adjacent property-owners, or by those employed by them for that purpose, the city ordinance introduced in evidence required that they should prepare and place lights thereon during the night-time, so as to warn persons passing along the street of their presence, that they might avoid injury, and if they failed to do so and the proper agents or officers of the city had notice of such failure, and neglected to do it themselves or require it to be done, or if the failure occurred for a sufficient length of time before the injury as would require proper agents or officers of the city to have known of it, in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, and they failed to do it themselves or require it to be done, and the plaintiff was passing along the street and was injured by reason of such failure to provide lights, if that was the chief or preponderating cause of the injury, and she could not have avoided the injury by the exercise of ordinary care on her part, then she can recover for the injury. But if the agents of the city did not have notice of the failure to light the obstructions, or such failure, if it occurred at all, did not occur for a sufficient length of time before the injury as such agents or officers of the city ought to have known of it in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, then the plaintiff cannot recover."—The movant insists that, instead of this charge, the court should have instructed the jury that it was the duty of the city to superintend the work going on in the street, and see to it that the street was left safe for passengers.

(2.) Because the court charged that, if the plaintiff was a married woman at the time of the injury, she could not recover for any expense incurred by her in consequence of the injury, unless actually paid by her, because she would not legally be liable for it.

(3.) Because the court refused to charge as follows: " Plaintiff's counsel request the court to charge that, whenpaving of sidewalks is being done in the city, whether by a contractor or immediately under the direction of the city, the city is bound to see to it that the street is kept in a safe condition."

(4.) Because the verdict is strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence, is without evidence to justify so small a recovery for the plaintiff, and is against law.

The motion was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted.

John C. Reed; G. T. Osborn, for plaintiff in error.

J. B. Goodwin; J. T. Pendleton, for defendant.

Hall, Justice.

1. There is but one ground of error alleged in this record on which the plaintiff, in the argument of her counsel here, confidently relies for a reversal of the judgment, and that is contained in the second ground of the motion for a new trial, and is as follows: Because the court charged that if the plaintiff was a married woman at the time of the injury, she could not recover for expenses incurred by her in consequence of the injury, unless actually paid by her, because she would not be legally liable therefor.

The husband was not joined with the wife in this action, which was brought for personal injuries to her, in consequence of obstructions in the streets of Atlanta, made by...