City of Garnett v. Hamilton

Supreme Court of Kansas

City of Garnett v. Hamilton

77 P. 583, 69 Kan. 866

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 7, 1904

DocketNo. 12,554

StatusPublished

This text of 77 P. 583 (City of Garnett v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Garnett v. Hamilton, 77 P. 583, 69 Kan. 866 (kan 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ouriam:

W. G. Hamilton recovered a judgment against the city of Garnett from an injury suffered from a defective sidewalk over which he was passing. While a sidewalk in the city was under repairs loose planks were insecurely laid over an excavation. The city knew, or should have known, of the dangerous condition of the walk. It could readily be seen that the walk was a temporary one, but it had been placed there for travel, and .the plaintiff had no reason to think it was insecure, and it cannot be held that he was guilty of contributory negligence.

The objections to the rulings on the admission of testimony are not material, and it cannot be said that there was not enough testimony to sustain the material findings of the jury.

The fact that a verified written claim or demand for damages was not presented to the city council is not a bar' to the maintenance of an action for damages. The penalty for failure to present an unliquidated claim is that no costs can be recovered against the city. The trial court did not award judgment for costs against the city, and, hence, it has no reason to complaim

We find nothing substantial in any of the objections, and, therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Ouriam:

W. G. Hamilton recovered a judgment against the city of Garnett from an injury suffered from a defective sidewalk over which he was passing. While a sidewalk in the city was under repairs loose planks were insecurely laid over an excavation. The city knew, or should have known, of the dangerous condition of the walk. It could readily be seen that the walk was a temporary one, but it had been placed there for travel, and .the plaintiff had no reason to think it was insecure, and it cannot be held that he was guilty of contributory negligence.

The objections to the rulings on the admission of testimony are not material, and it cannot be said that there was not enough testimony to sustain the material findings of the jury.

The fact that a verified written claim or demand for damages was not presented to the city council is not a bar' to the maintenance of an action for damages. The penalty for failure to present an unliquidated claim is that no costs can be recovered against the city. The trial court did not award judgment for costs against the city, and, hence, it has no reason to complaim

We find nothing substantial in any of the objections, and, therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 P. 583, 69 Kan. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-garnett-v-hamilton-kan-1904.