Teague v. City of Bloomington
| Decision Date | 23 April 1907 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,975.,5,975. |
| Citation | 81 N.E. 103,40 Ind.App. 68 |
| Parties | TEAGUE v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; Jas. B. Wilson, Judge.
Action by George Teague against the city of Bloomington. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
R. L. Morgan and East & East, for appellant. Duncan & Batman, for appellee.
Appellant brought this action against the city of Bloomington to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by having tripped and being thrown over a wire about one-eighth of an inch in diameter, which was stretched and attached to the top ends of five small stakes, which were driven into the ground about four feet apart and left projecting about twelve inches above the edges of the intersection of two sidewalks at a crossing of Sixth and Maple streets, public streets in said city. The cause was put at issue, and a trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant for costs. With their general verdict, the jury returned answers to interrogatories.
The errors assigned are the action of the court in overruling appellant's demurrer to the second and third paragraphs, respectively, of appellee's amended answer to appellant's amended complaint, and in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. No question is made upon the sufficiency of the complaint, and we deem a further statement of its contents unnecessary. The first paragraph of the amended answer was a general denial. The second alleges, substantially, that, prior to the bringing of the action, Sixth street, at the point referred to in the plaintiff's complaint, was improved by defendant, according to plans and specifications adopted by the defendant as by law required, and that, in the construction of said street at said point, a brick sidewalk was constructed to a width of six feet along the north side thereof, abutting and adjacent to the property line on said side of said street; that immediately south of said sidewalk, at the point of said alleged injury, and abutting the south side of said sidewalk at said point, was a tree plat or grass plat about six feet in width, and extendingwestwardly along the south side of said sidewalk from Maple street; that, at and prior to the time of the injury alleged by plaintiff, said city, in accordance with plans and specifications duly adopted, had improved Maple street at the point where the injury occurred, and in accordance with said plans and specifications had constructed a brick sidewalk six feet wide along the west side of Maple street at said point, which sidewalk abutted and was adjacent to the property line of the property owners along the west side of Maple street and intersected said north sidewalk on Sixth street at the point of plaintiff's injury; that the stakes mentioned in plaintiff's complaint as obstructions were situated in said tree plat; that one of said stakes were set in the tree plat near the corner of the intersection of said sidewalks; that others were set in said tree plat along the south side of said north sidewalk along Sixth street and along the west side of said west walk along Maple street; that a wire was attached to the top and connected all of said stakes, and was so arranged as a protection for said tree plat and to prevent pedestrians from crossing over and trespassing on the same; that none of said stakes or the wire was upon or extended across any of said sidewalks, or either of them; that in laying out said streets said tree plat had been established for the purpose of beautifying said street, and was not intended to be used by pedestrians for travel, and the same was shown by the plans and specifications adopted by the common council, and said improvements had been made and maintained in the manner set forth in said plans and specifications for a number of years prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial