corporation is not bound to provide ways which shall be perfectly safe for classes of the character named. The degree of care is not intensified as to the corporation by the existence of these conditions, but in respect to the care to be exercised by the persons under discussion.* 458 § 1054. Knowledge of danger. The use of a public highway by a traveler having knowledge of the dangers or defective condition may be, but not always, regarded as contributory negligence unless the way is obviously unsafe. The question is one to be determined according to the circumstances of a particular case. Where a knowledge of the danger exists, the duty of ordinary care imposed upon the traveler is that degree of care and prudence which is commensurate with or measured by the danger.460 The question to be determined by the Stewart v. City of Nashville, 96 Tenn. 50, 33 S. W. 613. Burden of proof is upon a blind person unattended upon the streets to show that he exercised due care. City of Austin v. Ritz, 72 Tex. 391, 9 S. W. 884; City of Sherman v. Nairey, 77 Tex. 291, 13 S. W. 1028; Arthur v. City of Charleston, 51 W. Va. 132, 41 S. E. 171. It is for the jury to determine whether a pedestrian is so intoxicated as to be unable to exercise ordinary care. Smalley v. City of Appleton, 75 Wis. 18, 43 N. W. 826. But see Edwards v. Village of Three Rivers, 102 Mich. 153, 60 N. W. 454. 458 Thorp v. Town of Brookfield, 36 Conn. 321; Ashborn v. Town of Waterbury, 70 Conn. 551, 40 Atl. 458; City of Mt. Vernon v. Brooks, 39 Ill. App. 426; Smith v. City of Cairo, 48 Ill. App. 166; Ham v. City of Lewiston, 94 Me. 265, 47 Atl. 548; Winn v. City of Lowell, 83 Mass. (1 Allen) 177. But see Edwards v. Village of Three Rivers, 102 Mich. 153, 60 N. W. 454. See, also, cases cited in preceding note. Stuart v. Inhabitants of Machias Port, 48 Me. 477; Mont v. Town of New Utrecht, 104 N. Y. 552, 11 N. E. 268; Cassedy v. Town of Stockbridge, 21 Vt. 391; Arthur v. City of Charleston, 51 W. Va. 132, 41 S. E. 171; Burns v. Town of Elba, 32 Wis. 605; Krause v. Merrill, 115 Wis. 526, 92 N. W. 231. 459 Ely v. City of Des Moines, 86 Iowa, 55, 52 N. W. 475, 17 L. R. A. 124; Owen v. City of Ft. Dodge, 98 Iowa, 281, 67 N. W. 281; Waltemeyer v. Kansas City, 71 Mo. App. 354; Swanson v. City of Sedalia, 89 Mo. App. 121; Atwater v. Town of Veteran, 52 Hun, 613, 6 N. Y. Supp. 907; Beck v. City of Buffalo, 50 App. Div. 621, 63 N. Y. Supp. 499; Stokes v. Ralpho Tp., 187 Pa. 333, 40 Atl. 958; City of Lynchburg v. Wallace, 95 Va. 640, 29 S. E. 675; City of Winchester v. Carroll, 99 Va. 727, 40 S. E. 37. See, also, cases cited in the two following notes. 460 Giffen v. City of Lewiston, 6 Idaho, 231, 55 Pac. 545; City of Flora v. Naney, 136 Ill. 45, 26 N. E. jury is, considering the nature and the location of the defect, whether with a knowledge of it, the traveler used ordinary care under the circumstances.461 When a knowledge of the danger ex 645, affirming 31 Ill. App. 493; Village of Noble v. Hanna, 74 Ill. App. 564; Village of Altamont v. Carter, 97 Ill. App. 196; City of Streator v. Chrisman, 182 Ill. 215, 54 N. E. 997, affirming 82 Ill. App. 24; City of Spring Valley v. Gavin, 182 Ill. 232, 54 N. E. 1035; Town of Salem v. Walker, 16 Ind. App. 687, 46 N. E. 90; Town of Williamsport v. Lisk, 21 Ind. App. 414, 52 N. E. 628; City of Indianapolis v. Marold, 25 Ind. App. 428, 58 N. E. 512; City of Bedford v. Neal, 143 Ind. 425, 41 N. E. 1029, 42 N. E. 815; Kendall v. City of Albia, 73 Iowa, 241, 34 N. W. 833; Hoover Town of Mapleton, 110 Iowa, 571, 81 N. W. 776; Bailey v. City of Centerville, 115 Iowa, 271, 88 N. W. 379; Langan v. City of Atchison, 35 Kan. 318, 11 Pac. 38; City of Kingsley v. Morse, 40 Kau. 577, 20 Pac. 217; Fox v. City of Chelsea, 171 Mass. 297, 50 N. E. 622; Thomas v. Western Union Tel. Co., 100 Mass. 156; Mahoney v. Metropolitan R. Co., 104 Mass. 73; McGuinness v. City of Worcester, 160 Mass. 272, 35 N. E. 1068; Dittrich v. City of Detroit, 98 Mich. 245, 57 N. W. 125; Schwingschlegl v. City of Monroe, 113 Mich. 683, 72 N. W. 7; McKenzie v. City of Northfield, 30 Minn. 456; Lyons v. City of Red Wing, 76 Minn. 20, 78 N. W. 868; Foster v. Swope, 41 Mo. App. 137; Chilton v. City of St. Joseph, 143 Mo. 192, 44 S. W. 766; Culverson v. City of Marysville, 67 Mo. App. 343; Boulton v. City of Columbia, 71 Mo. App. 519; Gillespie v. City of Newburgh, 54 N. Y. 468; Evans v. City of Utica, 69 N. Y. Supp. 166; Willis v. City of Newbern, 118 N. C. 132, 24 S. E. 706; Gardner v. Wasco County, 37 Or. 392, 61 Pac. 834, rehearing denied, 62 Pac. 753; Wood v. Bridgewood Borough, 143 Pa. 167, 22 Atl. 752; City of Ft. Worth v. Johnson, 84 Tex. 137, 19 S. W. 361; City of Richmond v. Leaker, 99 Va. 1, 37 S. E. 348; Coates v. Town of Canaan, 51 Vt. 131; Nicks v. Town of Marshall, 24 Wis. 139; Richards v. City of Oshkosh, 81 Wis. 226, 51 N. W. 256; Salzer v. City of Milwaukee, 97 Wis. 471, 73 N. W. 20; Koch v. City of Ashland, 88 Wis. 603, 60 N. W. 990. See, also, Bills v. City of Ottumwa, 35 Iowa, 107. See, also, § 1051, ante. 461 City of Birmingham v. Starr, 112 Ala. 98, 20 So. 424; City of Highlands v. Raine, 23 Colo. 295, 47 Pac. 283. It is not contributory negligence per se for a person to use, having knowledge of its condition, a defective sidewalk. Sampels v. City of Atlanta, 95 Ga. 110, 22 S. E. 135; City of Sandwich v. Dolan, 141 Ill. 430, 31 N. E. 416; Village of Clayton v. Brooks, 150 Ill. 97, 37 N. E. 574; City of Mt. Carmel v. Blackburn, 53 Ill. App. 658; City of Litchfield v. Anglim, 83 Ill. App. 55; City of Chicago v. McCabe, 93 Ill. App. 288; City of Frankfort v. Coleman, 19 Ind. App. 368, 49 N. E. 474; City of Huntington v. Folk, 154 Ind. 91, 54 N. E. 759; Larsh v. City of Des Moines, 74 Iowa, 512, 38 N. W. 384; Waud v. Polk County, 88 Iowa, 617, 55 N. W. 528; Graham v. Town of Oxford, 105 Iowa, 705, 75 N. W. 473; Troxel v. City of Vinton, 77 Iowa, 90, 41 N. W. 580; Har ists on the part of the traveler if he temporarily forgets it 462 or misjudges his proximity to it 463 or assumes that the defect of vey v. City of Clarinda, 111 Iowa, 528, 82 N. W. 994; Finnegan v. Sioux City, 112 Iowa, 232, 83 N. W. 907; Keyes v. City of Cedar Falls, 107 Iowa, 509; Falls Tp. v. Stewart, 3 Kan. App. 403, 42 Pac. 926; City of Wichita v. Coggshall, 3 Kan. App. 540, 43 Pac. 842; City of Ottawa v. Black, 10 Kan. App. 439, 61 Pac. 985; City of Maysville v. Guilfoyle, 110 Ky. 670, 62 S. W. 493; Town of Fordsville v. Spencer, 23 Ky. L. R. 1260, 65 S. W. 132; Allegheny County Com'rs v. Broadwaters, 69 Md. 533, 16 Atl. 223; St. Germain v. City of Fall River, 177 Mass. 550, 59 N. E. 447; Pomeroy v. Inhabitants of Westfield, 154 Mass. 462, 28 N. E. 899; Dipper v. Inhabitants of Milford, 167 Mass. 555, 46 N. E. 122; Grattan v. Village of Williamston, 116 Mich. 462, 74 N. W. 668; Urtel v. City of Flint, 122 Mich. 65, 80 N. W. 991; Bratfisch v. Mason Tp., 120 Mich. 323; Wiggin v. City of St. Louis, 135 Mo. 558, 37 S. W. 528; Stein v. Koster, 67 N. J. Law, 481, 51 Atl. 480; Shook v. City of Cohoes, 108 N. Y. 648, 15 N. E. 531; Thompson v. City of Winston, 118 N. C. 662; Pitman v. City of El Reno, 2 Okl. 414, 37 Pac. 851, Id., 4 Okl. 638, 46 Pac. 495; Ford v. Umatilla County, 15 Or. 313, 16 Pac. 33; Humphreys v. Armstrong County, 56 Pa. 204; Manross v. Oil City, 178 Pa. 276, 35 Atl. 959; Shallcross v. City of Philadelphia, 187 Pa. 143; Stewart v. City of Nashville, 96 Tenn. 50; City of Denison v. Sanford, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 661, 21 S. W. 784; Ball v. City of El Paso, Tex. Civ. App. 221, 23. S. W. 835; City of Hillsboro v. Jack son, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 325, 44 S. W. 462 Coles v. Revere, 181 Mass. 175, 63 N. E. 430. Question for jury. Slee v. City of Lawrence, 162 Mass. 405, 38 N. E. 708; Bouga v. Weare Tp., 109, Mich. 520, 67 N. W. 557; City of Knoxville v. Cox, 103 Tenn. 368, 53 S. W. 734; Doan v. Town of Willow Springs, 101 Wis. 112, 76 N. W. 1104. But see Benedict v. City of Port Huron, 124 Mich. 600, 83 N. W. 614. 463 City of Milledgeville v. Brown, 87 Ga. 596, 13 S. E. 638; City of Bloomington v. Rogers, 9 Ind. App. 230, 36 N. E. 439; Village of Orleans v. Perry, 24 Neb. 831, 40 N. W. 417; Parcells v. City of Auburn, 77 Hun, 137, 28 N. Y. Supp. 471; Boyce v. Town of Shawangunk, 40 App. Div. 593, 58 N. Y. Supp. 26; Rysdyke v. Town of Mt. Hope, 46 App. Div. 624, 61 N. Y. Supp. 645; Bly v. Village of Whitehall, 120 N. Y. 506, 24 N. E. 943; Millcreek Tp. 464 which he had knowledge has been remedied, these questions as affecting his contributory negligence are ordinarily all to be determined by the jury. It would seem on principle that where at traveler has knowledge of a defect and is injured because of it, a use of the highway on his part should be regarded as contributory negligence sufficient to bar a recovery. Public corporations hav-. ing charge of highways are not eleemosynary institutions and should not be charged pecuniarily with the lack of ordinary care and diligence on the part of those using facilities constructed and maintained for the benefit of the community and from which the corporation derives no profits. § 1055. Conduct of the traveler. A traveler may be guilty of such conduct in the use of a highway as to charge him with contributory negligence. The duty of a public corporation is not that of an insurer. The traveler using the highway for a proper purpose must do this in a proper manner and exercise ordinary care and diligence, not only in respect to his own acts or omissions, but also in connection with the care and management of the vehicle which he may be using and its condition.466 v. Perry (Pa.) 12 Atl. 149; Musselman v. Borough of Hatfield, 202 Pa. 489, 52 Atl. 15; McQuillan v. City of Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 38 Pac. 1119. 464 Dale v. Webster County, 76 Iowa, 370, 41 N. W. 1; Whoram v. Argentine Tp., 112 Mich. 20, 70 N. W. 341. 465 City of Chicago v. Kohlhof, 64 Ill. App. 349; Vermillion County Com'rs v. Chipps, 131 Ind. 56, 29 N. E. 1066, 16 L. R. A. 228. Extraordinary load. La Porte County Com'rs v. Ellsworth, 9 Ind. App. 566, 37 N. E. 22. Not contributory negligence to attempt to cross a bridge with traction engine. Stickney v. City of Salem, 85 Mass. (3 Allen) 374; Anderson v. City of St. Cloud, 79 Minn. 88, 81 N. W. 746. Unusual load. Morhart v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 64 N. J. Law, 236, 45 Atl. 812; Smith v. Village of Henderson, 54 App. Div. 26, 66 N. Y. Supp. 347; Heib v. Town of Big Flats, 66 App. Div. 88, 73 N. Y. Supp. 86; Bailey v. Brown Tp., 190 Pa. 530, 42 Atl. 95; McVoy v. City of Knoxville, 85 Tenn. 19. But the fact that the plaintiff was coming from an unlawful place will not preclude his recovery. Fisher v. Town of Franklin, 89 Wis. 42, 61 N. W. 80; City of Wabash v. Carver, 129 Ind. 552, 29 N. E. 25, 13 L. R. A. 851. Where highway bridges are commonly used for crossing by traction engines, contributory negligence cannot be charged. (a) Careless driving. The traveler is bound in using a highway to ride or drive in a careful manner; 467 one in keeping with the kind of locomotion he employs and the load he may be transporting.468 This includes the question of a driver's competency.469 Through careless or incompetent driving a person may be guilty of contributory negligence so as to relieve the corporation of any liability. (b) Unmanageable teams. Ordinarily, the duty of a public corporation applies to a use of its public ways by well broken and horses not skittish and those carefully and skillfully driven. Where they become unmanageable through a lack of these conditions, if by a defect in the highway an injury occurs, contributory negligence can be charged and no recovery permitted.70 This 466 Jordan v. City of New York, 44 App. Div. 149, 60 N. Y. Supp. 696, affirmed 165 N. Y. 657, 59 N. E. 1124; Sewell v. City of Cohoes, 75 N. Y. 45; Jennings v. Town of Albion, 90 Wis. 22, 62 N. W. 926; Luedke v. Town of Mukwa, 90 Wis. 57, 62 N. W. 931. See, also, § 1056, post. 467 CiCty of Aurora v. Scott, 185 Ill. 539, 57 N. E. 440; McDonald v. Inhabitants of Savoy, 110 Mass. 49. Evidence that the plaintiff was com monly careful and skillful in driving is not admissible to show that at the time of the accident he was in the exercise of due care. Langworthy v. Green Tp., 88 Mich. 207, 50 N. W. 130; Belles v. Kellner, 67 N. J. Law, 255, 51 Atl. 700, 54 Atı. 99, 57 L. R. A. 627; Titus v. Town of New Scotland, 11 App. Div. 266, 42 N. Y. Supp. 152; Mueller v. Ross Tp., 152 Pa. 399, 25 Atl. 604; Nelson v. Shaw, 102 Wis. 274, 78 N. W. 417. But see City of Chicago v. McCarthy, 61 Ill. App. 300. 468 Bryant v. Town of Randolph, 53 Hun, 631, 6 N. Y. Supp. 438. Question for jury. Walker v. Village of Ontario, 111 Wis. 113, 86 N. W. 566. But see Tucker v. Henniker, 41 N. H. 317. 469 City of Mt. Vernon v. Hoehn, 22 Ind. App. 282, 53 N. E. 654. Girl of sixteen competent to drive an ordinarily gentle team. Cobb v. Inhabitants of Standish, 14 Me. 198. Permitting a woman to drive a horse is not conclusive evidence of such want of ordinary care as to preclude a recovery. Britton v. Inhabitants of Cummington, 107 Mass. 347; Brush v. City of New York, 59 App. Div. 12, 69 N. Y. Supp. 51. 470 Daniels v. Town of Saybrook, 34 Conn. 377. The rule applies only where the person injured has knowledge of the vicious propensities of the horse he is driving. City of Macon v. Dykes, 103 Ga. 847, 31 S. E. 443; City of Centralia v. Scott, 59 I. 129. Question for the jury. Langhammer v. City of Manchester, 99 Iowa, 295; Dennett v. Inhabitants of Welling. ton, 15 Me. 27; Bliss v. Inhabitants of Wilbrahan, 90 Mass. (8 Allen) 564; Titus v. Inhabitants of Northbridge, 97 Mass. 258; Fogg v. Inhabitants of Nahant, 98 Mass. 578; |