Muldraugh's Hill, Campbellsville & Columbia Turnpike Co. v. Maupin
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 20 — ORDINARY APPEAL PROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The demurrer to each paragraph of the petition should have been sustained. 2. Appellant is only bound to exercise ordinary diligence. There is no averment of want of such care. (Sherman & Redfield on Negligence, secs. 18, 351, 6.) 3. The court erred in permitting evidence of injury to appellee’s child, and in allowing the physician, Dr. Bass, to put a pecuniary estimate upon the suffering of appellee.
Read the full summary
Case 20 — ORDINARY APPEAL PROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The demurrer to each paragraph of the petition should have been sustained. 2. Appellant is only bound to exercise ordinary diligence. There is no averment of want of such care. (Sherman & Redfield on Negligence, secs. 18, 351, 6.) 3. The court erred in permitting evidence of injury to appellee’s child, and in allowing the physician, Dr. Bass, to put a pecuniary estimate upon the suffering of appellee. Proof that another bridge than that mentioned in the petition was out of repair was incompetent. 4. Instruction number one makes appellant…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Gofer
We perceive no valid objection to the first or second paragraph of the petition, but the third fails to state any facts whatever. It simply sums up the damages claimed to-have resulted from the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs, and prays judgment for the aggregate of the sums-, claimed in the preceding paragraphs. The demurrer to that paragraph should have been sustained.
We are also of the opinion that the court should have-sustained the appellant’s motion to require the appellee to-elect which of the paragraphs he would prosecute.
The petition plainly shows that the two paragraphs…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Lou. & Nash. R. R. v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
- Louisville & N. R. R. v. LogsdonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Sakamoto v. Kemmerer Coal Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1927
- McDonald v. City Electric Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906
- Kentucky Central R. R. v. AckleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.