TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James v. City of San Francisco

JAMES v. THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

James v. City of San Francisco, 6 Cal. 528 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1856
Judges
Terry
Citations
6 Cal. 528
Cited by 10
Syllabus
The obligation of a municipal corporation to keep the streets in repair, is necessarily suspended while they are actually undergoing such alterations as, for the time, made them dangerous. When the law compels the corporation to gire out a contract for grading a street to the lowest bidder, it takes away from the corporation the responsibility arising from the acts of the person taking the contract. It follows that where a party was injured by falling at night into an excavation made in grading the street of a city under such a contract, owing to the failure to put lights or guards about the place, the contractor, and not the city, is liable.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District. This was an action brought against the City of San Francisco, for damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in falling into the excavation caused by grading Clay street, near Powell, in the city of San Francisco. The plaintiff alleged the serious injury sustained by him by falling into the excavation made in grading the street, and that the accident occurred in a dark night, there being no light nor railing placed on the spot to prevent foot passengers from falling into the chasm made in the street, which was about twenty feet deep. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not show any cause of action against the defendant. The demurrer being overruled by the Court below, defendant answered. On trial plaintiff established the allegations of his complaint, and defendant proved that the contract to grade the street in question was given to the lowest bidder, as required by law, and that the accident to plaintiff occurred during the progress of the work. Judgment was rendered in the court below for $5,000 against defendant, who moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Terry

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Terry delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

The obligation of a municipal corporation to keep the streets in repair is necessarily suspended while they are actually undergoing such alterations as, for the time, render them impassable or dangerous.

At the time of the injury complained of, the street was being graded by one Babcock, under a contract with defendant, and the character of the work necessarily rendered said street unfit for a public thoroughfare, and this fact was a matter of general notoriety.

It is said that the contract of Babcock only related to the carriage way of the street, extending from one sidewalk to the other, and that the obligation of the city to keep the sidewalk in repair was not suspended because repairs or alterations were being made in the carriage way.

The Common Council, by ordinance, required the owners of property along the line of improvement, to grade the sidewalks, and the alteration of the whole street was progressing at the same time. The defendant had no control over the workmen employed, and, as the law requires all such contracts to be given out to the lowest bidder, could not even select the contractor.

It is a well settled rule that “ Whenever a person is absolutely compellable, by law, to employ a particular individual in a given matter, the law which compels him to employ that individual, takes away his responsibility arising from the acts of that individual. Story on Agency, § 456.

*531 For any injuries, arising from negligence in the manner of conducting the work, we are of opinion that the liability rests upon the contractors, and not upon the city. Reedy v. London and N. W. Railway, 4 Welsby H. and G. Exchequer R., 243.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1874–1875: 11882–1883: 11894–1895: 21896–1897: 11898–1899: 11904–1905: 11910–1911: 11912–1913: 11940–1941: 118742026peak 1894 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wilson v. City of Wheeling19 W. Va. 323 (1882)
  2. Gay v. Engebretson109 P. 876 (Cal. 1910)
  3. Williams v. Thacker Coal & Coke Co.44 W. Va. 599 (1898)
  4. Allen v. City of Los Angeles110 P.2d 75 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
  5. Dow v. City of Oroville134 P. 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
  6. City of Lincoln v. Calvert58 N.W. 115 (Neb. 1894)

Most recent

  1. Allen v. City of Los Angeles110 P.2d 75 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
  2. Dow v. City of Oroville134 P. 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
  3. Gay v. Engebretson109 P. 876 (Cal. 1910)
  4. Peterson v. City of Seattle82 P. 141 (Wash. 1905)
  5. Williams v. Thacker Coal & Coke Co.44 W. Va. 599 (1898)
  6. City of Guthrie v. Swan1897 OK 25, 41 P. 84

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list