Douglass v. Monongahela City Water Co.
Douglass v. Monongahela City Water Co.
Opinion of the Court
The learned trial judge very properly refused requests for binding instructions from both parties. The testimony tending to prove defendant company’s negligence was abundantly sufficient to require its submission to the jury; and that relating to plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was not of such a character as to justify the court in withdrawing the case from the jury.
The charge as a whole was quite as favorable to the company as it could reasonably ask. The rights and duties of both parties were carefully explained in well guarded language. This was not the case of a traveler voluntarily assuming the risk of known danger. The modification of that doctrine sought by defendant’s fifth request for instructions, cannot be regarded as proper. Discussion of the questions involved would serve no useful purpose.’ The case was well tried and defendant has no just cause of complaint.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James C. Douglass v. Monongahela City Water Co.
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Contributory negligence — Accident in street — Choice of ways. Where a person has a choice of ways it is not negligence for him to choose one way whose dangerous condition he does not know, although he has knowledge by actual previous travel that the other way is safe. Negligence — Water company — Contributory negligence — Excavation in •streets — Running on cartway — Running to afire. A water company made an excavation in the cartway of a street to repair a water pipe. The repair was completed on the same day, but the excavation was not filled up.. The excavation was guarded by barrels, and planks placed on the top of the barrels, and extending to a dirt pile. On the evening of the second day after the excavation had been made, plaintiff in running to a fire struck one of the planks, which gave way, and plaintiff was precipitated into the excavation, suffering serious personal injuries. The nearest light to the excavation was a street lamp about sixty-one yards distant. The pavement opposite the excavation was being repaired, and was in bad condition, and this was known to plaintiff. Held, that the question oí defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury.