Ryan v. Kansas City
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — No». John G. Park, Judge. (1) The plaintiff was not required to look for an excavation in the sidewalk. It was the duty of the defendants to keep such an excavation properly guarded ,and lighted. Plaintiff had the right to presume that the .sidewalk was in a reasonably safe condition for use.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — No». John G. Park, Judge. (1) The plaintiff was not required to look for an excavation in the sidewalk. It was the duty of the defendants to keep such an excavation properly guarded ,and lighted. Plaintiff had the right to presume that the .sidewalk was in a reasonably safe condition for use. Perrette v. Kansas City, 162 Mo. 238; Holloway v. Kansas City, 184 Mo. 29; Roe v. Kansas City, 100 Mo. 190; Drake v. Kansas City, 190 Mo. 385. (2) It is not claimed that the plaintiff had any knowledge of the excavation in the sidewalk and the defendants concede that…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION.
KENNISH, J.
I cannot concur in the opinion of the court, or in the concurring opinion, delivered in this case, for the reason that the law, as declared therein, is not only in conflict with the former decisions of this court and the current of authority upon that subject, but also because, under the facts of this case, the law as thus announced deprives a traveler upon a sidewalk in a city of the benefit of a principle of law, the existence of which both opinions, concede. [Heberling v. Warrensburg, 204 Mo. 604; Perrette v. Kansas City, 162 Mo. 238; Hitt v. Kansas City, 110…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Yahn v. City of OttumwaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
- Woodson v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Wheat v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Mathews v. City of Cedar RapidsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Coffey v. City of CarthageSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.