Walker v. City of Vicksburg

71 Miss. 899
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1894·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Assuming the law to be that Walker did not sustain such relation to the city, by reason of his employment as a fireman, as to preclude him from recovering for an injury sustained because of a defect in the street under circumstances which would entitle any traveler to recover, it appears too plain for dispute that his injury resulted from want of due care on his part, and that on this ground he should not be allowed to recover. The extent of the obligation of the city [902] is to keep the streets in a condition reasonably safe for general use, and it is not required to have them so as to insure the safety of a reckless driver, whether a fireman or another. According to the testimony of Mr. Gibson for the plaintiff, “a person driving prudently and with ordinary care could have passed the place without accident.” A fireman is not exempt from the duty to exercise ordinary care and prudence in driving to a fire.

Affirmed.

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

Walker v. City of Vicksburg, 71 Miss. 899 (Mich. 1894).

71 Miss. 899 (Walker v. City of Vicksburg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. City of Columbus
134 F.2d 464 (Fifth Circuit, 1943)
Graves v. Johnson
176 So. 256 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1937)
Fiechter v. City of Corbin
71 S.W.2d 423 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1934)
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bloodworth
145 So. 333 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1933)
Mississippi Power Co. v. Sellers
133 So. 594 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1931)
Gulfport & Mississippi Coast Traction Co. v. Manuel
85 So. 308 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1920)