Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Syllabus. [95 JAMES MAGAHA vs. THE MAYOR And COUNCIL OF HAGERSTOWN. Injury to Pedestrian Crossing a City Street? When a Municipal Corporation is Liable for an Injury Caused by Ice Which it has Allowed to Accumulate in a Street? Contributory Negligence. Pedestrians have the right to cross the streets of a city at any point and are not confined to the established crossings; and one who in crossing a street is injured by some defect in the highway of which he had no notice is not guilty of contributory negligence merely because he did not use a fixed crossing place. A municipal corporation is not liable for an injury caused to a person who slips and falls upon ice accumulated in the streets in consequence of rain or snow, unless there are other circumstances to show neglect of the municipality's duty to keep the streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel. A drain pipe from a house emptied water into the gutter of a street which was under the control of the defendant, a municipal corporation having the power and being under the obligation to keep its streets reasonably safe for travel and to abate nuisances. The water flowing from this drain into the gutter froze early in December and formed a sheet of ice in the roadbed, six inches thick, extending sixty feet in length and four or five feet wide, and so remained throughout the winter. The Mayor and other officials of the city were directly notified of this condition, which had also existed in previous years. In the early morning of a January day, when it was still dark, plaintiff, who was walking along the sidewalk of this street, was called by a friend to the opposite side, and started across, not at a fixed crossing place, when, while using due care and in ignorance of the existence of the above mentioned shee...
Je vindt dit boek in
Reviews Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Volume 95)
Voor dit artikel zijn nog geen reviews.Schrijf een review