A city has no inherent power to go upon private property abutting on a highway to remove melting snow and stop the discharge of water from a pipe in order to prevent the accumulation of ice on a sidewalk, since the pipe and the accumulated snow do not con stitute a nuisance per se; Udkin v. New Hav en, 80 Conn. 291, 68 Atl. 253, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 868.
A citizen owes the city the duty to use his senses, and not to run into obstructions with which he is familiar and which be might avoid by the exercise of ordinary care; Jack son v. Kansas City, 106 Mo. App. 52, 79 S. W. 1174; Lerner v. Philadelphia, 221 Pa. 294, 70 Atl. 755, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 614; Cook v. At lanta, 94 Ga. 613, 19 S. E. 987 ; Shelley v. Aus tin, 74 Tex. 608, 12 S. W. 753; but if one in jured by defective condition of the street had no knowledge of the defect, he cannot be charged with contributory negligence; Guth rie v. Swan, 5 Okl. 779, 51 Pac. 562; Misha waka v. Kirby, 32 Ind. App. 233, 69 N. E. 481; Newman v. New York, 57 Misc. Rep. 636, 108 N. Y. Supp. 676; Cox v. Des Moines, 111 Ia. 646, 82 N. W. 993; Quinlan v. Philadelphia, 205 Pa. 309, 54 Atl. 1026.
One has a right to presume, and to act up on that presumption, unless he has knowl edge or reason to believe to the contrary, that a street is In a reasonably safe condition for travel if he uses due care; Bruch v. Phila delphia, 181 Pa. 588, 37 AU. 818; Lamb v.
Worcester, 177 Mass. 82, 58 N. E. 474; Hollo way v. Kansas City, 184 Mo. 19, 82 S. W. 89; Corcoran v. New York, 188 N. Y. 131, 80 N. E. 660; City Council of Montgomery v. Reese, 146 Ala. 410, 40 South. 760; Chicago v. Bab cock, 143 IlL 358, 32 N. E. 271; he may as sume that it is not obstructed, or that ob structions will be sufficiently guarded to in sure safety, and that it is reasonably safe throughout its entire width ; Spring Valley v. Gavin, 182 Ill. 232, 54 N. E. 1035; Holloway v. Kansas City, 1S4 Mo. 19, 82 S. W. 89; Brus so v. Buffalo, 90 N. Y. 679; be is not bound to anticipate danger; Turuer v. Newburgh, 109 N. Y. 301, 16 N. B. 344, 4 Am. St. Rep. 453; nor is he under duty to look for de fects; Drake v. Kansas City, 190 Mo. 370, 88 S. W. 689, 109 Am. St. Rep. 759; Lamb v. Worcester, 177 Mass. 82, 58 N. E. 474; but
if one knows a street or sidewalk to be dan gerous, he has no right to presume it to be safe; Perrette v. Kdnsas City, 162 Mo. 238, 62 S. W. 448.
A person whose sight is defective is re quired to exercise more care and keener watchfulness than is required from a person of good sight ; Wedderburn v. Detroit, 144 Mich. 684, 108 N. W. 102; Keith v. R. Co., 196 Mass. 478, 82 N. E. 680, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 648; so of one who is blind; Hill v. Glen wood, 124 Iowa, 479, 100 N. W. 522; near sighted; Spring v. Williamstown, 186 Mass. 479, 71 N. E. 949; contra, Rock v. Const. Co., 120 La. 831, 45 South. 741, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 653, where it was held that a person with de fective eye-sight has a right to assume within reasonable limits that the sidewalks are safe, and that he will be warned and protect ed from danger due to an unsafe condition.
In actions for damages from defective side walks, it was a question for the jury wheth er, under the circumstances, the corporation is liable; Burr v. Plymouth, 48 Conn. 460; Beck v. Hood, 185 Pa. 32, 39 Atl. 842. A question for their decision is whether ordina ry care was used and whether the sidewalk was reasonably safe; Hall v. Lowell, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 260; or whether there was negligence in not removing the obstruction; Goodfellow v. New York, 100 N. Y. 15, 2 N. E. 462 ; Fox worthy v. Hastings, 25 Neb. 133, 41 N. W. 132; or whether there was a sufficient lapse of time to be considered constructive notice; Woolsey v. Ellenville, 61 Hun 136, 15 N. Y. Supp. 647.
Even if the city were negligent, a person injured by a defective sidewalk cannot re cover unless he show himself in the exercise of due care; Sandwich v. Dolan, 133 Ill. 177, 24 N. E. 526, 23 Am. St. Rep. 598; and if the accident occurred by reason of the plaintiff's being intoxicated, be cannot recover; Mc Cracken v. Markesan, 76 Wis. 499, 45 N. W. 323.
Where the sidewalk is manifestly danger ous it is the duty of a pedestrian to walk on the roadway; Porker v. Sandy Lake, 130 Pa. 123, 18 Atk 609; and he cannot recover for an injury which his own observation, pru dently exercised, ought to have enabled bim to avoid; Moore v. Huntington, 31 W. Va. 842, 8 S. E. 512.