 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cunningham v. City of Shreveport8/9/2005
ter is located. There is no dispute in the case sub judice that the city is responsible for maintenance of this area, rather, the issue in this case is whether or not the city had notice of the condition under 9:2800. Notice was not an issue in Lewis. This court stated in Lewis, and the majority here so notes that, in Lewis "the City had received numerous complaints concerning this hole in the past, but had taken no action to repair the hole." By contrast, as mentioned above, the only evidence of any report of the hole near the meter in this case is Mr. Darrow's testimony that he called the number on his water bill years ago and reported the hole. Again, there is no record of this call. The trial court's factual decision that this was insufficient evidence of notice to the city was not clearly wrong.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
|