THE CITY
v.
BABCOCK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City v. Babcock concerned whether a city could be held liable for injuries caused by a defective street or sidewalk. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict against the city, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury that the plaintiff must prove the city had notice of the defect, and correctly refused an instruction that would have directed the jury to find the city not liable based on disputed evidence. The Court established that questions of fact regarding a city's liability for street defects belong to the jury, not to the judge through directed verdicts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
After argument by Mr. Potter, for the defendant in error,
Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.
It is argued by the plaintiff in error that the defect in the street was so recent that the city could not be deemed to have constructive notice; and, as no actual notice was proved, no liability could attach. But, as this question is not presented by the record, we are not called upon to discuss it, and to declare under what circumstances the city could be exonerated from liability for damages by reason of defective sidewalks. The bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence on the trial, nor even the substance of it, for it says, after reciting certain proofs, “ that much other testimony was also introduced on the one side and the other which is not reported.”
Such being the case, the correctness of the finding of the jury is not involved, and every presumption is in favor of the verdict, and that it was supported by the evidence on the trial. There was evidence which tended to establish the liability of the ci1y, and the court properly charged the jury that the plaintiff', to maintain her action, must prove that the city had notice of the defect in the street. If the evidence were not enough, the corrective was in the hands of the court, on a motion for a new trial. It was conceded, in the argument, that the court ruled properly in the instructions which were given to the jury; but it was insisted that there was error in refusing to instruct, as requested by the defendant. The court was asked, substantially, to charge the jury, that the city was not responsible, because there was evidence which tended to prove the existence of certain facts. This the court had no right to do. The court could not tell the jury that any legal results followed from evidence which only tended to prove the issue to be tried. This controversy necessarily turned on the finding, of the jury upon the evidence, and an instruction, which sought to withdraw from the jury the right to determine matters of fact, was correctly refused.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Mellon, 276 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1928)…ays been ruled in such a case that if the bill of exceptions does not contain all the evidence, it will be presumed that the evidence omitted was sufficient to justify a refusal to grant the motion. Russell v. Ely, 2 Black 575, 580; City v. Babcock, 3 Wall. 240, 244; Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Cummings, 106 U. S. 700, 701; Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 606; Hansen v. Boyd, 161 U. S. 397, 403; United States v. Copper Queen Mining Co., 185 U. S. 495, 498; Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-Ame…
-
Nashua Sav. Bank v. Anglo-American Land, 189 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1903)…all the evidence in-the case, we should be at liberty, if the circumstances of the case required it, to infer that there was other evidence to supply any defect in 'respect to the legality of the call. Hansen v. Boyd, 161 U. S. 397; City v. Babcock, 3 Wall. 240; United States v. Patrick, 73 Fed. Rep. 800. The sufficiency of the evidence cannot be reviewed on writ of [*232] error. Generes v. Campbell, 11 Wall. 193, 199 ; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658. It appears from the testimony of the secretary of th…
-
Crowe v. Trickey, 204 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1907)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence