struction, in the first place, was not enough to relieve him from liability; but the duty of inspection and repair continued while he owned and was in the exclusive possession of the premises. The duty ran with the land as long as the grate was maintained for the benefit of the land. . . While the owner cannot be held liable in this action for failing to repair the entire sidewalk in front of his premises, was he properly held liable for failing to keep in repair the grate itself, which was his own structure? This depends upon the duty that he assumed when he cut a hole in the sidewalk and covered it with the grate. That duty included proper construction in the first place, and reasonable care on the part of the owner to keep the grate in repair thereafter, as long as he continued in possession. The duty sprang from the necessity of having safe sidewalks and, as the necessity is continuous, so is the duty. Upon no other ground can the construction of a grate in a sidewalk, which is an interference with a public highway, be justified, even when permission is duly granted." Respondent in her brief refers to certain averments in her answer to the original complaint, to the effect that the sidewalk in question was constructed under the provisions of the Vrooman Act, March 18, 1885, and was accepted by the superintendent of streets of the city of Los Angeles, or by the board of public works, his successor. But such averments will not be considered when passing upon the demurrer to the complaint. As we view the liability of the defendant under the facts as stated in the amended complaint, it is entirely separate from, and independent of, the city, and the latter's obligation to keep the sidewalk in proper repair. It is an original responsibility resting upon defendant to keep the gratings and lights in a condition which will render the sidewalk, of which they form a part, reasonably safe for use by those who may pass over it. We cannot concede that defendant, having knowledge of the dangerous condition of the gratings and their resultant menace to the safety of the general public, could shut her eyes to the necessity of repairing them until such time as someone was injured, and then avoid liability by pleading that she had not received the twenty-four hours' notice required by the Vrooman Act. In other words, under the facts of this case, the duty was, in the first instance, inde pendent of notice to or by the city, cast upon the defendant to repair the gratings. It is only where there is no liability whatever until service thereof that the notice we are discussing must be given. In the latter case the service of the notice lies at the very foundation of the liability and its enforcement, which is not the situation here. Moreover, an examination of the photograph attached to the complaint as an exhibit depicts the gratings apparently in a condition which might render them in their character "of the nature of a nuisance" (Barry v. Terkildsen, 72 Cal. 254, [1 Am. St. Rep. 55, 13 Pac. 657]; Spence v. Schultz, 103 Cal. 208, [37 Pac. 220]), in which event defendant, who was responsible for their presence and had knowledge of their condition, as it is alleged she did, for a long time prior to the injury to plaintiff, or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, would have known of it, should not escape liability upon the ground that she had not received statutory notice of the existence of such nuisance. We think the amended complaint stated a cause of action, and that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer. Judgment reversed. Sloane, J., Wilbur, J., Lawlor, J., Lennon, J., and Shaw, C. J., concurred. MEMORANDUM CASE. [S. F. No. 9695. In Bank.-December 9, 1921.] SAN FRANCISCO BUREAU OF GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH (a Corporation), Petitioner and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Appellants. GINEER [1] PUBLIC RECORDS INSPECTION OF DATA IN OFFICE OF CITY EN- SAN FRANCISCO HETCH HETCHY PROJECT. Judgment modified and affirmed on the authority of Coldwell v. Board of Public Works of the City and County of San Francisco et al., ante, p. 510. APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George E. Crothers, Judge. Modified and affirmed. The facts are the same as those stated in the opinion in the case of Coldwell v. Board of Public Works of the City and County of San Francisco et al., ante, p. 510. Robert B. Gaylord for Petitioner and Appellant. George Lull and Robert M. Searls for Defendants and Appellants. LAWLOR, J.-This is a companion case to Coldwell v. Board of Public Works of the City and County of San Francisco et al., ante, p. 510, [202 Pac. 879], and the same issues are involved here as were involved in that case. The two cases were tried together, the pleadings are identical except for necesary minor differences, the judgments are the same, and on appeal the briefs of the respective parties were consolidated. Petitioner here is alleged to be a nonprofit corporation, having no capital stock, organized under the laws of California, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, and is a citizen of the city and county of San Francisco. The objects and purposes of petitioner, as set forth in the petition, are "to act as an unincorporated, nonpolitical, nonprofit-making citizens' agency for securing the highest obtainable degree of efficiency and economy in the transaction of public business, particularly in the municipality of San Francisco, through investigating, collecting, classifying, studying, and interpreting facts concerning the powers, duties, actions, limitations, methods, and problems of the several departments of government, and making such information available to public officials and citizens, and promoting the development of a constructive program for the city and county of San Francisco that shall be based upon adequate knowledge of community needs, thereby encouraging economy and efficiency in the conduct of public business in order that the taxpayers may be assured full return value in services rendered for taxes paid and money spent in governmental cost payments." Defendants make no objections to the interest of the petitioner in the data which is sought to be inspected other than those advanced in the case of Coldwell v. Board of Public Works et al., supra. [1] On the authority of that case, the judgment in the case at bar is modified to omit from the writ the exception of all confidential reports, estimates, or data collected or compiled by assistants or other engineers for the use of the city attorney or other attorneys representing the city and county of San Francisco in legal proceedings, and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Shaw, C. J., Lennon, J., Wilbur, J., Sloane, J., Shurtleff, J., and Waste, J., concurred. |