City of Humboldt v. Dickinson

Supreme Court of Kansas

City of Humboldt v. Dickinson

83 P. 1115, 72 Kan. 698, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 374

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 6, 1906

DocketNo. 14,406

StatusPublished

This text of 83 P. 1115 (City of Humboldt v. Dickinson) 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 Humboldt v. Dickinson, 83 P. 1115, 72 Kan. 698, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 374 (kan 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The petition of Lillian Dickinson stated a cause of action against the city of Humboldt for injuries resulting from a defective sidewalk. There is nothing material in the objections to rulings of the court on the admission of testimony. The evidence sufficiently sustains the findings of the jury that the •city was negligent in the maintenance of the walk. The alleged negligence involved to some extent the defect in the board'walk, the declivity from that to the stone upon which the plaintiff stepped, and the instability of the stone. The findings show the extent to which each contributed to the injury, and also that it did not occur through the fault of Mrs. Dickinson. That the city had at least constructive notice of the defect in the walk is well shown, and no difficulty is found in harmonizing the findings of the jury with each other and with the general verdict. The case appears to have been fairly submitted to the jury and no material errors in the proceedings are discovered, and hence the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The petition of Lillian Dickinson stated a cause of action against the city of Humboldt for injuries resulting from a defective sidewalk. There is nothing material in the objections to rulings of the court on the admission of testimony. The evidence sufficiently sustains the findings of the jury that the •city was negligent in the maintenance of the walk. The alleged negligence involved to some extent the defect in the board'walk, the declivity from that to the stone upon which the plaintiff stepped, and the instability of the stone. The findings show the extent to which each contributed to the injury, and also that it did not occur through the fault of Mrs. Dickinson. That the city had at least constructive notice of the defect in the walk is well shown, and no difficulty is found in harmonizing the findings of the jury with each other and with the general verdict. The case appears to have been fairly submitted to the jury and no material errors in the proceedings are discovered, and hence the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 P. 1115, 72 Kan. 698, 1906 Kan. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-humboldt-v-dickinson-kan-1906.