Rahm v. City of Vicksburg
| Decision Date | 04 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | 3297. |
| Citation | 255 F. 541 |
| Parties | RAHM v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF VICKSBURG. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
R. L McLaurin, of Vicksburg, Miss. (McLaurin & Armistead, of Vicksburg, Miss., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
George Anderson, of Vicksburg, Miss. (Anderson, Vollor & Kelly, of Vicksburg, Miss., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before WALKER and BATTS, Circuit Judges, and SHEPPARD, District Judge.
Veto street, between Washington and Walnut, in the city of Vicksburg, was improved by reducing the grade. No corresponding change was made in the sidewalk on the north side. This sidewalk, from Washington street east towards Walnut, was of concrete; and, starting with the same grade as Veto street at Washington, it was, at the middle of the block, from 3 1/2 to 5 feet higher than the street. From this point the sidewalk was of brick, and, gradually descending again reached the level of Veto street at Walnut. Plaintiff in error, a gentleman of more than 70, a traveling salesman not residing in the city, was walking from Washington east towards Walnut on the north sidewalk of Veto. Reaching the highest point on the sidewalk, he states that he saw what appeared to him a hole in the sidewalk, and, in order to avoid any danger, he left the sidewalk and stepped into the street at the point at which the sidewalk was highest from the street. He sustained injury from the resulting fall, and instituted suit against the city for damages.
The declaration charged that plaintiff proceeded on a concrete sidewalk until 'when the sidewalk ceased to be of concrete and continued in brick pavement, which under the dim reflection from the street light appeared very much darker to the plaintiff than the concrete sidewalk'; that 'in an effort to avoid possible danger ahead of him, where he could not see so plainly, he turned to the right, intending to cross Veto street and to take the sidewalk on the south side, where he could see much better from the light available'; that at this place 'Veto street is some 4 or 5 feet lower than the sidewalk,' the step-off being practically perpendicular; that the accident to plaintiff was caused by negligently leaving the sidewalk at the old grade and not providing sufficient light or a railing. In a second count it was alleged that the north sidewalk was not lowered to avoid complications or litigation with adjacent owners of property. The trial court overruled a demurrer to the declaration.
After the introduction of evidence he instructed the jury, but concluded his charge by...
To continue reading
Request your trial