City of Independence v. Ragsdale

Supreme Court of Kansas

City of Independence v. Ragsdale

71 P. 1126, 66 Kan. 763, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 140

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 10, 1903

DocketNo. 12,870

StatusPublished

This text of 71 P. 1126 (City of Independence v. Ragsdale) 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 Independence v. Ragsdale, 71 P. 1126, 66 Kan. 763, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 140 (kan 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This was an action brought by William H. Ragsdale against the city to recover damages for personal injuries. The city contracted for the construction of a sewer, the work to be performed “under the supervision and instruction of the committee on health and improvement.” The work was done by a subcontractor. In ’the doing of this work dynamite was used in blasting rock from the trench in which the sewer-pipe was laid. An insufficient attempt was made so to guard the explosion that projectiles thrown off thereby should not escape from the trench into the air. As plaintiff was traveling along the street, in close proximity to the work being done, a shot was fired which threw into the air a piece of rock of about one and one-half pounds in weight, which, in descending, struck him on the knee, causing the injury for which action was brought. Plaintiff had judgment.

Many grounds of error are assigned and urged upon our attention. A careful examination of the record and the elaborate brief of plaintiff fails to disclose any substantial error in the proceedings of the trial court, or any question of sufficient importance to merit separate consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This was an action brought by William H. Ragsdale against the city to recover damages for personal injuries. The city contracted for the construction of a sewer, the work to be performed “under the supervision and instruction of the committee on health and improvement.” The work was done by a subcontractor. In ’the doing of this work dynamite was used in blasting rock from the trench in which the sewer-pipe was laid. An insufficient attempt was made so to guard the explosion that projectiles thrown off thereby should not escape from the trench into the air. As plaintiff was traveling along the street, in close proximity to the work being done, a shot was fired which threw into the air a piece of rock of about one and one-half pounds in weight, which, in descending, struck him on the knee, causing the injury for which action was brought. Plaintiff had judgment.

Many grounds of error are assigned and urged upon our attention. A careful examination of the record and the elaborate brief of plaintiff fails to disclose any substantial error in the proceedings of the trial court, or any question of sufficient importance to merit separate consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 P. 1126, 66 Kan. 763, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-independence-v-ragsdale-kan-1903.