Sehorn v. City Of Charlotte
| Decision Date | 10 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 455.) |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 782 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SEHORN. v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Carter, Judge.
Action by Isabella A. Sehorn against the City of Charlotte. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Error.
Chase Brenizer, of Charlotte, for appellant.
F. M. Redd and J. F. Newell, both of Charlotte, for appellee.
CLARK, C. J. [1-3] This action is to recover damages for negligence. The plaintiff, a lady about 62 years of age, while walking on a street in Charlotte, stepped into a hole in the sidewalk, " with the result that her kneecap was fractured and permanently injured. A cement sidewalk had been laid on this street extending to the curb, and the water meter was left within the surface of the cement sidewalk. The curb was moved further off, leaving some 6 or 7 feet of grass plat between the curb and the cement sidewalk. The water meter was then taken out of the cement walk, and its removal left a circular hole about three-fourths within the cementsidewalk, the hole being 16 to 18 inches in diameter and knee-deep. It is admitted that the city itself moved the meter and left the hole there, and it is in evidence that it was partially filled up, but the earth was not tamped, and the plaintiff was injured by stepping therein. The court charged as follows:
"If the city caused this water meter to be removed, and left in the sidewalk there a hole of 4 to 7 inches in depth, and permitted that hole to stay there for the space of from 6 to 12 months, this would be negligence per se, and the defendant would be responsible to the plaintiff for such injuries as were directly caused by such negligence."
There was evidence of negligence to be left to the jury, but it was error to charge that this was negligence per se. In Poster v. Try-on, 169 N. C. 183, 85 S. E. 211, we said:
"The duty which municipal corporations owe to those using their streets, and the degree of responsibility imposed upon them by law, are stated clearly and accurately by Associate Justice Hoke in Fitzgerald v. Concord, 140 N. C. 110 , which has been approved in Brown v. Durham, 141 N. C. 252 , Revis v. Raleigh, 150 N. C. 353 [63 S. E. 10491, Johnson v. Raleigh, 156 N. C. 271 , Bailey v. Winston, 157 N. C. 259 , and in other cases. He says: 'The governing authorities of a town are charged with the duty of keeping their streets and sidewalks, drains, culverts, etc., in a reasonably safe condition; and their duty does not end at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. City of Charlotte
...161 N.C. 78, 76 S.E. 692; Darden v. Plymouth, 166 N.C. 492, 82 S.E. 829; Bell v. Greensboro, 170 N.C. 179, 86 S.E. 1041; Sehorn v. Charlotte, 171 N.C. 541, 88 S.E. 782; Dowell v. Raleigh, 173 N.C. 202, 91 S.E. Ridge v. High Point, 176 N.C. 421, 97 S.E. 369; Bailey v. Asheville, 180 N.C. 645......
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Reid
... ... [88 S.E. 780] ... C. W ... Tillett, Jr., of Charlotte, for appellant ... Mangum & Woltz, of Gastonia, for appellees ... ...
-
Rollins v. City Of Winston-salem
...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 wi......