Rollins v. City Of Winston-salem

• Decision Date: 13 November 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 366.)
• Citation: 97 S.E. 211
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ROLLINS. v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM.

97 S.E. 211

ROLLINS.

v.CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM.

(No. 366.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 13, 1918.

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Lane, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Elizabeth Rollins against the City of Winston-Salem. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injury, caused, as the plaintiff alleges, by the negligence of the defendant. On the night of October 7, 1917, the plaintiff, while walking on the sidewalk on the right-hand side of Liberty street, going north, stumbled over a fire hydrant, injuring her left arm. The hydrant was about 26 inches high, and was within 7 inches of the outside curb; the hydrant itself being 8 1/2 inches thick, making the side of the hydrant farthest from the outside of the curb 15 1/2 inches. This hydrant was located in a block between Patterson avenue, on the south, and White street, on the north. At Patterson avenue, which was 316 feet from the hydrant, there was a high-powered electric street light and at White street, which was 468 feet from the hydrant, there is such light. The sidewalk at this point is some 7 or 8 feet wide, and is paved from property line to curb with concrete. In other parts of the city the sidewalk is not paved to the curb.

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that, on account of the presence of a tree near this hydrant and the distance from the street lights, it was so dark that a person walking along the sidewalk could not see it. Some 15 or 20 feet away from the hydrant, both north and south of it, was located a telephone or electric light pole, about the same distance from the curb as the hydrant. The evidence disclosed that this hydrant, like other hydrants in this city, was placed in the edge of the sidewalk next to the curb, and just far enough from the curb, so that the part of the hydrant to which the hose was to be attached would clear the driveway.

At the conclusion of the evidence there was a judgment of nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.

Fred M. Parrish, of Winston-Salem, for appellant.

Manly, Hendren & Womble, of Winston-Salem, for appellee.

ALLEN, J. [1] It is the duty of the municipal corporation to maintain its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition, and a failure to do so is negligence, which subjects the corporation to liability for injuries proximately resulting therefrom. Schorn v. Charlotte, 171 N. C. 541, 88 S. E. 782.

In the performance of this duty wide discretion is given to the governing authorities, and the courts are loath to interfere with its exercise, and will usually decline todo so, unless it Is grossly abused or is oppressive. Small v. Edenton, 146 N. C. 529, 60 S. E. 413, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 145; Rosenthal v. Goldsboro, 149 N. C. 135, 62 S. E. 905, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 809, 16 Ann. Cas. 639.

It is not an absolute duty imposed on the corporation to light its streets, and when it does so the placing of the lights Is left largely to its discretion (White v. New Bern, 146 N. C. 447, 59 S. E. 992, 13 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1166, 125 Am. St. Rep. 476); and the same rule prevails as to the location...