Pooser v. Town of Salley

93 S.E. 1006, 108 S.C. 288, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 234
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided November 4, 1917·No. 9823·Published

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

Mrs. Pooser lives in the town of Salley. On her way from church one night, she was walking on a sidewalk across which there was a drain and over the drain there was a bridge. The dirt of the sidewalk was not even with the *289 bridge and there was at the bridge an excavation made by the washing of water. Into this depression Mrs. Pooser stepped and fell, and received injuries for which this suit is brought. At the close of plaintiff’s testimony, the defendant moved for, and the trial Judge granted, a nonsuit. In granting the nonsuit the presiding Judge said :

“As to what is a defect in a street, that is to be construed in the light of all the circumstances in the case.”

That is true, and that made it a question for the jury, and a new trial is ordered. The case of Lancaster v. City of Columbia, 104 S. C. 228, 88 S. E. 463, is so recent that no discussion is necessary. That case was a protruding root; this an excavation.

This case has not been prepared in accordance with the rule, and no costs for printing the case is allowed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices AVatts and Gage concur in the opinion of the Court.

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

Pooser v. Town of Salley, 93 S.E. 1006, 108 S.C. 288, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 234 (S.C. 1917).

93 S.E. 1006 (Pooser v. Town of Salley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lancaster v. City of Columbia
88 S.E. 463 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1916)