Riley v. McNicol

The controlling facts relating to the construction of the highway at the point of injury are not in dispute. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court because the evidence did not indicate such a structure, or present such a condition, as was contemplated by the Legislature in enacting the guard rail statutes, and because the structure was not such as is required to be safeguarded by guard rails.

The traveled highway at the point of injury was 24 feet wide. In the center was a brick pavement 14 feet in width. Thirteen feet below the surface of the highway, at the time of…