Merritt

Merritt v. McFarland

Good Law
1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 13·4 Cal. App. 390·88 P. 369
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 8, 1906Civ. No. 254.California784 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gray, J.

This action is brought against the city of Riverside, a city of the sixth class, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while the plaintiff was walking along Locust street by falling over an embankment at the intersection of Locust and Seventh streets in said city. The action is brought against the superintendent of streets of said city, the sureties on his official bond, and the city trustees of said city. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment. The defendants appeal from the said judgment.

It is contended on behalf of the defendant, the superintendent of streets, T. K. Seburn, that his motion for a non-suit should have been granted, because it was not shown that any duty rested upon him which he had failed to perform, or which he had performed in a negligent manner. With this we cannot agree. It was shown, without conflict, that under his supervision Seventh street at its intersection with Locust street had been cut down so as to leave an embankment two feet in height on one side of said Seventh street. It was also shown, or rather admitted in the pleadings, that Locust street and Seventh street were streets of said city dedicated to public travel; and while there is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.