The owners of lands adjoining a street are not in some states entitled to compensation for damages occasioned by a change of grade or other lawful alteration of the street; 2 B. & A. 403 ; Radcliff's Ex'rs v. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195, 53 Am. Dec. 357; Seaman v. Washington, 172 Pa. 467, 481, 33 Atl. 756; Smith v. Washington, 20 How. (U. S.) 135, 15 L. Ed. 858 ; Broadwell v. Kansas, 75 Mo. 213, 42 Am. Rep. 406; Mattingly v. Plymouth, 100 Ind. 545 ; unless such damages result from a want of due skill and care or an abuse of- authority ; 5 B. & Ald. 837; Conrad v. Ithaca,. 16 N. Y. 158. See EMINENT DOMAIN.
A city which in the repair of the streets plac es an obstruction in them must give appropri ate warning of the same ; Baltimore v Mary land, 166 Fed, 641, 92 C. C. A. 335 ; Wilson v. Wheeling, 19 W. Va. 323, 42 Am. Rep. 780; Alexander v. Big Rapids, 76 Mich. 282, 42 N. W. 1071. If danger can be averted only by special precautions, such as placing guards or lighting the streets, it is bound to take these precautions; Guthrie v. Swan, 5 Okl. 779, 51 Pac. 562; Streeter v. Marshalltown, 123 Ia. 449, 99 N. W. 114 ; Pettengill v. Yonkers, 116 N. Y. 558, 22 N. E. 1095, 15 Am. St. Rep. 442. It must take proper precautions to prevent the removal of the lights or barriers, or ascertain the fact and replace them speedily if they are removed; Fox v. Chelsea, 171 Mass. 297, 50 N. E. 622. ' The municipal authorities must dirt, rubbish and ashes from the street ; Con nor v. Manchester, 73 N. H. 233, 60 Atl. 436. A city may not allow a street to be used as a storage place for vehicles; Radichel v. Ken dall, 121 Wis. 560, 99 N. W. 348 ; a gravel beat er left standing unused for a week in the gut ter of a street may be found to be a defeat in the highway for which the city is liable to a traveller who is injured thereby ; Griffin v. Boston, 182 Mass. 409, 65 N. E. 811; or a
road scraper ; Whitney v. Ticonderoga, 127 N. Y. 40, 27 N. E. 403; or a tool chest hab t ually in the highway, placed there by a con tractor engaged in repairing sewers under a contract with the city : Warden v. City of N. Y., 123 App. Div. 733. 108 N. Y. Srp'. 301 A tunnel or subway for electric cars is held not to be an additional servitude and will give the owner no right to compensation; Sears v. Crocker, 184 Mass. 586, 69 N. E. 327, 100 Am. St. Rep. 577; in the proper sense a highway is primarily for travel, and a strong presumption arises that any use of the land for this purpose is within the scope of the proper use, even though its form may be entirely new. This presumption, however, may be rebutted by proof that the new mode of travel is necessarily very burdensome or prejudicial to the land owner ; see 17 Harv. 409. Under the statutes of Califor nia a telephone corporation operating inter state and local lines in a city of the fifth class obtained rights to maintain its main lines in the streets, but not its local posts and wires, except subject to the regulations of the city ; Pomona v. Tel. Co., 224 U. S. 330, 32 Sup. Ct. 477, 56 L. Ed. 788.
Under the statutes of several of the states, assessments are levied upon the owners of lots specially benefited by opening, widening, or improving streets, to defray the expense thereof ; and such assessments have been ad judged to be a constitutional exercise of the taxing power; People v. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419, 55 Am. Dec. 266: In re Extension of Hancock Street, 18 Pa. 26 ; Nichols v. Bridge port, 23 Conn. 189, 60 Am. Dec. 636 ; Alex ander v. Baltimore, 5 Gill (Md.) 383, 46 Am. Dec. 630 ; In re Dorrance-Street, 4 R. I. 230. See Dill. Mun. Corp.
See ASSESSMENT; RAILROAD; HIGHWAY: POLES; WIRES; NUISANCE; SIDEWALK.