Massey v. The Mayor
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Citation | 75 Ga. 658 |
| Parties | Massey. vs. The Mayor, etc., of Columbus. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Municipal Corporations. Streets and Sidewalks. Damages. Negligence. Before Judge Willis. Muscogee Superior Court. November Adjourned Term, 1884.
Massey brought suit against the Mayor and Council of Columbus for damages to himself and his horse, buggy and harness, caused by running into.a gully left open in that city. On the trial, the evidence for the plaintiff was, in brief, as follows: The plaintiff lived about seven miles from the city, and had visited there for a number of years. He knew that some of the streets had drains open in the center of them, but could not say whether all the streets running north and south were so drained. Mcintosh street, on which the injury occurred, ran in that direction. He knew that there was a low place in the center of it by which it was drained, but when he last passed that place, early Monday morning, there was no ditch there. He returned Thursday night about eight o'clock. It was dark, and in attempting to cross the street, his buggy ran into a ditch, his horse became frightened and ran away, throwing the plaintiff out, tearing up the buggy and injuring himself. The gully was dug by the city hands deepening the drain and throwing the dirt out of it on each side. It was about three or four feet wide, and was estimated at between one and a half and two and a half feet deep from the top of the dirt thrown out. The roadway was wide enough for travel on each side of the drain, and there were cross-streets running east and west at the end of every block. The city hands were at work on the ditch the day after the injury, and had been for some days before. The sides of the ditch were steep and not sloping. Plaintiff was driving slowly when his buggy ran into the gully.
The evidence for the defendants was, in brief, as follows: The system of drainage in Columbus is by open drains in the streets, running north and south, and the drain in the street where the plaintiff was hurt had been there fortwenty or thirty years. There were crossings where the streets running east and west intersected those running north and south. The drain was worked out by the city, and when the plaintiff was injured, it was three or four feet wide and about eight or ten inches deep, counting from the top of the dirt thrown out of it; the sides were sloping, and by driving carefully, a person could cross, and it was often done. It was necessary to do this work to drain the street. Since then it has been found that the drain was not deep enough, and it has been dug out to about thirty inches in depth. The street was 132 feet wide, of which the sidewalks occupied 30 feet, leaving nearly fifty feet of clear street on each side of the drain.
There was other testimony, as to the extent of the injury, which need not be set out in detail. The jury found for the defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, one ground of the motion being the...
To continue reading
Request your trial