Monroe v. City of Louisville, (1939)
Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
Number:
Visitors: 21
Judges: OPINION OF THE COURT BY MORRIS, COMMISSIONER
Attorneys: W.J. GOODWIN for appellant.
GAVIN H. COCHRAN for appellee.
Filed: May 26, 1939
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Reversing. Appellant, about fifty-five years of age, and in good health, was injured by falling into a hole in Erie Street, admittedly a city street. The accident occurred about 7:30 p. m. February 19, 1937. Later she instituted suit against the city; after alleging certain preliminary and essential facts she asserted that she was injured by falling in the hole in the city's street at the time stated and (by amendment) described that point as being on the north side of Erie Street, in front of t
Summary: Reversing. Appellant, about fifty-five years of age, and in good health, was injured by falling into a hole in Erie Street, admittedly a city street. The accident occurred about 7:30 p. m. February 19, 1937. Later she instituted suit against the city; after alleging certain preliminary and essential facts she asserted that she was injured by falling in the hole in the city's street at the time stated and (by amendment) described that point as being on the north side of Erie Street, in front of th..
More
It seems to me that there is a quite obvious distinction
between this case and the case of Krieger v. Louisville Water Company, 272 Ky. 746, 115 S.W.2d 286, which it undertakes to follow. In the Krieger case the plaintiff fell over a water box in an otherwise smooth sidewalk. In the case at bar the entire surface of the street "was rough and uneven, and had been so for many years." It strikes me that one who walks over such a street, with knowledge of its condition, must exercise some care for his own safety. The appellant certainly did not do so. The court did not err in saying as a matter of law, that appellant was negligent. I think that the judgment should be affirmed.
Source: CourtListener
