Churchman v. Kansas City
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Olay Qirouit Court. — Hon. Jas. M. Sandusky, Judge. (1) There being no evidence -that the city bnilt or controlled the viaduct, the case should not have been submitted to the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Olay Qirouit Court. — Hon. Jas. M. Sandusky, Judge. (1) There being no evidence -that the city bnilt or controlled the viaduct, the case should not have been submitted to the jury. Bishop v. Centralia, 49 Wis. 669 ; Hemphill v. Boston, 8 Cush. 195; Hurgan v. Lowell, 3 Allen, 398 ; Landis v. Hamilton, 77 Mo. 563; Brink v. Collier, 56 Mo. 168-9. (2) Plaintiff’s testimony so clearly showed the dangerous condition of the viaduct, and that the same was perfectly apparent to plaintiff at the time, that he was guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to cross it. Turner v.…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This action is for injuries done to the plaintiff and his property. He obtained judgment below. On Twelfth street in Kansas City, Missouri, there is an approach to a viaduct, extended west along Twelfth street about - hundred feet up to the point where it reaches the viaduct proper. The viaduct itself extending thence on in a northwesterly direction over lots and blocks to a point in the state of Kansas. The approach was wooden, while the viaduct was iron. In the first part of November, 1887, there was afire at the stock-yards stable which communicated to the approach and so injured it as to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Ryan v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- J & D Towing, LLC v. American Alternative Insurance Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2016
- Coffey v. City of CarthageSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Hoffman v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Churchman v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892