Burke v. Tricalli

Citations

• 124 La. 774
• 50 So. 710
• 1909 La. LEXIS 543

Syllabus

<p>1. Statement of Facts — Offenses and Quasi Offenses.</p> <p>The defendant is charged by plaintiff with having, contrary to law, placed a wooden gutter or drain, uncovered, across the sidewalk in front of his property, with sides extending sufficiently -above the level bricks of the sidewalk to catch the feet of passing pedestrians. It is alleged that plaintiff’s foot struck the gutter, causing her to fall and seriously injure herself. She sues defendant for damages. The evidence showed that the gutter was not placed across the sidewalk by defendant, but by a former owner of the abutting property. The district court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, and on appeal that judgment is affirmed.</p> <p>2. Municipal Corporations (§ 803*) — Drain Across Sidewalk — Duty of Pedestrian to Guard Against.</p> <p>It is incumbent upon passengers on the streets to use at least ordinary care to guard against the existence and danger of drains across the sidewalks. The necessity for such drains has been recognized for many years, and their general existence commonly known. Plaintiffs in this case lived in the immediate neighborhood of this sidewalk, and had passed and repassed it almost daily for a long while. The accident occurred at 9 o’clock -in the morning. No one had ever complained of the gutter, or its condition.</p> <p>3. Evidence (§ 32*) — Judicial Notice — Citt Oedinances.</p> <p>There is evidence in the record of its having been made by ordinance the duty of the owners of property abutting upon the streets to keep the sidewalks in front of the same in repair. The Supreme Court does not take judicial notice of city ordinances.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>