Fritz v. City of Watertown
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County. Hon. Gdorgu H. Marquis, Judge. Action by P. M. Fritz against the city of Watertown. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying defendant’s application for a new trial, it appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtHaney, J.
This is an action for personal injuries caused by a defective sidewalk. The appeal is from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and an order denying defendant’s application for a new ¡trial.
Defendant objected to- the introduction of any -evidence, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is contended that “the complaint was insufficient, in this: It simply shows that the respondent fell on a certain street and was injured, and that he demanded $4,000 damages. It is insufficient because it does not set forth any facts to show what his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bills v. Town of KaukaunaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Schuenke v. Town of Pine RiverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Strait v. City of EurekaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kelley v. CurtissNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
- Hohm v. City of Rapid CitySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
- Gurney v. Rapid CitySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1951
- Breedon v. WhiteArizona Supreme Court · 1945
- Kelley v. CurtissNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.