City of Suffolk v. Carter

Supreme Court of Virginia

City of Suffolk v. Carter

464 S.E.2d 154, 251 Va. 1, 1995 Va. LEXIS 150

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedNovember 15, 1995

DocketRecord No. 951459; Circuit Court No. CL92000679

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 464 S.E.2d 154 (City of Suffolk v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Suffolk v. Carter, 464 S.E.2d 154, 251 Va. 1, 1995 Va. LEXIS 150 (Va. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon consideration of the record, the petition for appeal, and the argument of counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of opinion that there is error in the judgment from which this appeal is taken. Consequently, an appeal is awarded the petitioner from the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk on May 16, 1995 in a certain civil action in which Mildred B. Carter was plaintiff and the City of Suffolk was defendant.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment against the City for personal injuries sustained when she tripped and fell on a sidewalk alleged to have been negligently maintained by the City. There was a grade separation between two sidewalk sections measuring five-eighths of an inch.

The Court is of opinion that as a matter of law the City was not liable in damages for the plaintiff’s injuries sustained as the result of the slight defect in the sidewalk. City of Roanoke v. Sutherland, 159 Va. 749, 754-55, 167 S.E. 243, 244-45 (1933). Accord City of Virginia Beach v. Young, Record No. 942221, decided July 6, 1995 (city not liable for injuries sustained by pedestrian who fell on alleged sidewalk defect consisting of one-inch height difference between sidewalk sections).

Accordingly, the circuit court’s judgment is reversed and annulled, and final judgment is entered for the petitioner.

[2]*2This order shall be certified to the said circuit court and shall be printed in the Virginia Reports.

[[Image here]]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Upon consideration of the record, the petition for appeal, and the argument of counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of opinion that there is error in the judgment from which this appeal is taken. Consequently, an appeal is awarded the petitioner from the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk on May 16, 1995 in a certain civil action in which Mildred B. Carter was plaintiff and the City of Suffolk was defendant.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment against the City for personal injuries sustained when she tripped and fell on a sidewalk alleged to have been negligently maintained by the City. There was a grade separation between two sidewalk sections measuring five-eighths of an inch.

The Court is of opinion that as a matter of law the City was not liable in damages for the plaintiff’s injuries sustained as the result of the slight defect in the sidewalk. City of Roanoke v. Sutherland, 159 Va. 749, 754-55, 167 S.E. 243, 244-45 (1933). Accord City of Virginia Beach v. Young, Record No. 942221, decided July 6, 1995 (city not liable for injuries sustained by pedestrian who fell on alleged sidewalk defect consisting of one-inch height difference between sidewalk sections).

Accordingly, the circuit court’s judgment is reversed and annulled, and final judgment is entered for the petitioner.

[2]*2This order shall be certified to the said circuit court and shall be printed in the Virginia Reports.

[[Image here]]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 S.E.2d 154, 251 Va. 1, 1995 Va. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-suffolk-v-carter-va-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack