Town of Bromley v. Bodkin

• Decision Date: 15 December 1903
• Citation: 77 S.W. 696
• Parties: TOWN OF BROMLEY v. BODKIN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

77 S.W. 696

TOWN OF BROMLEY v. BODKIN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 15, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Mary Bodkin against the town of Bromley. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Myers &amp Howard, for appellant.

B. F Graziani, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

Appellee recovered judgment against appellant in the sum of $275 for a severe injury to her ankle, caused by a fall which occurred in this way: Appellee was employed to solicit orders for a tea store in Ludlow, and for this purpose went to Bromley, which was not far from Ludlow. In coming out of the house of a customer on Kenton street, she undertook to step on the sidewalk, which was constructed of plank laid across scantlings that ran with the sidewalk. The planks which were laid across the scantlings and at right angles to the direction of the sidewalk, were long enough for two people to walk upon them abreast. When appellee stepped upon the plank for the purpose of getting upon the sidewalk, it was not nailed down at the other end, and tilted up with her. By this she was thrown down, and her foot in some way was caught and severely wrenched and sprained. She was laid up for seven months. She proved that the same thing had happened to another person at the same place four or five months before, and that the plank had remained there loose from that time until she was injured, and until about a week afterwards, when the sidewalk was repaired. Bromley is a place of about 600 people. Kenton is a cross-street running between Main and Roman. It was laid off by the town about the year 1892, but the town authorities had done no work upon it except to fill some holes in the carriageway and clean out the gutters. There were gutters on each side made by a plow. There were no sidewalks on the square except the one she was hurt on, which was constructed by the owner of the property. At other points the people walked on the ground, or on planks lying on the ground. There were a church and three or four houses on the square, but the town authorities had never required the property owners to build sidewalks.

It is urged for the town that it is not responsible for appellee's injury, because no proof was made showing that it had notice of the defect in the sidewalk, and because the town authorities had not taken charge of the sidewalk on this street. As the plank had been loose for...