58 N.C fact as to whether defendant City had actual or implied notice of the obstructions. First, plaintiff argues that defendant City had actual notice of the vegetation because it had planted the vegetation in the 1970s. Plaintiff also directs us to a curb usage study performed by defendant City’s Traffic Engineering Division in 1987 which indicated that parking on both sides of Wells Street obstructed the travel lanes to a point such that emergency vehicles would not be able to use the road. Moreover, plaintiff also claims that if defendant City did not have actual notice, the evidence gives rise to an inference that it had implied notice based on the length of time the alleged obstructions had been present. See Fitzgerald v. Concord, 140 N.C. 110, 113, 52 S.E. 309, 310 (1905) (<HOLDING>). We agree with plaintiff and conclude there
holding there is no continuing duty to repair or recall holding that it is not holding that pro se petitioners need not raise issues in ins terms but may raise them as they may have understood them holding when observable defects in a highway have existed for a time so long that they ought to have been observed notice of them is implied and is imputed to those whose duty it is to repair them recognizing that jurors have the right to reject that part of the evidence believed by them to be untrue and to accept that found by them to be true