Drunkenness on the part of the plaintiff, was proper to be considered by the jury, in arriving at thefact as to whether the plaintiff was free from fault. Hartfield v. Roper, 21 Wend. 615. Lane v. Crombie, 12 Pick. 176. Pluckwell v. Wilson, 5 Car. & P. 375. Williams v. Holland, 6 Ibid. 23. Brownell v. Flagler, 5 Hill, 282, and cases cited.
JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.
OPINION
HEYDENFELDT, Judge
The Court below erred in giving the third, fourth and fifth instructions. If the defendants were at fault in leaving an uncovered hole in the sidewalk of a public street, the intoxication of the plaintiff cannot excuse such gross negligence. A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street, as a sober one, and much more in need of it.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.