Clark v. City of Richmond

Citations

• 83 Va. 355
• 5 S.E. 369
• 1887 Va. LEXIS 78

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal Corporations—Liability — Streets.—Such a corporation having by its charter power to lay out, improve, light and keep its streets in order, is liable in damages to any person who may sustain injuries by reason of its neglect to keep its streets in proper and safe condition, if it has notice, express or implied, of the defect. Noble v. City of Richmond, 31 Gratt. 271.</p> <p>2. Idem.—Excavation.—And where it permits an excavation to remain without proper guards so near the highway that one rightfully using it may, without fault, by unintentional deviation, or accidental misstep, sustain injury by falling into such excavation, it is also liable.</p> <p>3. Idem.— Trespasser.—But where, in order to reach the place of danger, the party must quit the highway and become a trespasser on another’s premises, such corporation is not liable.</p> <p>4. Idem.—Children—Case at bar.—Nor is it actionable negligence in such a corporation to have a place “so alluring to children” as that mentioned in the evidence, exposed without barriers, when it could only be reached by leaving the highway and trespassing on another’s premises.</p> <p>5. Appellate Court—Evidence—Instructions.—Where the evidence shows that a party was not entitled to the instructions given by the court below, and that he could not thereby have been prejudiced, this court will not reverse the judgment.</p> <p>6. Idem.—Quccre.—Where the only bill of exceptions in the record is to the refusal of the court to give instructions asked for by the appellant, and does not set forth all the evidence, and show that a new trial was moved for, and denied, can this court set aside the verdict and remand the cause for a new trial? Rhea v. Trotter, 26 Gratt. 599 ; Briggs v. Hall, 4 Leigh, 528.</p>