116 Va. 383 | Va. | 1914
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit brought by Cook’s administratrix against the city of Danville to recover damages for the death of her intestate, occasioned by the negligence of the defendant in error. The declaration shows that the city of Danville, upon which was imposed by its charter the duty of keeping its streets in a reasonably safe condition, was engaged at the time of the occurrence to be investigated in making repairs upon' one of its streets, and in the course of its operations stretched a rope across the street, and the plaintiff’s intestate, while riding upon a motorcycle, came in contact with the rope, was thrown from the motorcycle and sustained the injuries from which he died.
The work upon the street was at the intersection of two streets and ropes were placed across each one of the four sections so as to enclose within a quadrilateral the' part of the street at which the work was being done. The averment of the declaration upon which the plaintiff must base her right to recover is as follows:
“Plaintiff further avers that said intestate, before and at the time of the injury 'aforesaid, was operating his machine in a reasonably safe manner, without notice of any danger whatsoever, at the time and place aforesaid, or even of the existence of said rope across s'aid street, and he received the injuries as aforesaid, which i esulted in his death as aforesaid, by reason of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid, to-wit: In placing said rope across said street, without notifying the public and especially the plaintiff, in the use of said street, with his motorcycle as he had used it prior thereto.”
There was a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the defendant’s demurrer to the evidence, and judgment was entered for the defendant, to which a writ of error was awarded by this court.
The city was making some repairs at the intersection of two streets, and it pursued the usual and customary method in such cases of stretching ropes across each one of the four approaches to the intersection, so as to warn travelers of the interruption to the use of the streets. The proof shows that the course pursued by the city was in conformity with the customary practice of cities in such cases; indeed, in the absence of evidence upon the subject, it is a matter of common knowledge that where the use of a street is being temporarily obstructed, ropes are stretched across to give warning to the public. Travelers upon a highway are expected to use their senses and to take reasonable precaution for their own safety, and to a person in the possession of his senses and in the exercise of reasonable care a rope three-fourths of an inch in diameter stretched across the street is reasonably sufficient to guard against 'accident.
The case of Newport News and Old Point Ry. v. Clark’s Admr. 105 Va. 205, 52 S. E. 1010, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 105, 115 Am. St. Rep. 868, was, we think, a stronger case for recovery than the one under consideration. In that case the railway company, in compliance with the requirement of the municipal authorities, had removed its poles inside the curb line of the sidewalk in the town of Phoebus, and was engaged in repairing and stringing
In the case before us, the defendant in error was engaged.in the performance of its duty. The only act attributed to it as a basis for the recovery of damages a/rainst it is the stretching of a three-quarters rope from one side of the street to the other in plain view, into which the plaintiff’s intestate rode upon a motorcycle and sustained the injury for which this suit was brouerht. It is unnecessary to inquire whether or not he was guilty
Affirmed.