McIlhenny v. Kansas City

175 S.W. 108, 188 Mo. App. 218, 1915 Mo. App. LEXIS 66
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 1, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 175 S.W. 108 (McIlhenny v. Kansas City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McIlhenny v. Kansas City, 175 S.W. 108, 188 Mo. App. 218, 1915 Mo. App. LEXIS 66 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff fell upon one of defendant’s sidewalks and broke his leg. He brought this action charging the city with negligence and recovered judgment.

The walk was constructed of boards two inches thick and eight inches wide, laid over stringers. It was in bad condition; there being loose boards and in places boards were out altogether. But it bad been in this condition ¿ considerable time and the public including the plaintiff himself used it continuously. At the particular place where plaintiff was hurt there were two boards gone and the one next the vacancy, thus made, was loose. Plaintiff’s business was going round that part of the city in a buggy taking orders for groceries. When he got near the place of the injury the street was so muddy he tied his horse and proceeded on foot. He took the sidewalk because of the mud in the street and a ditch that had washed out between the walk and the fence. He weighed about 200 pounds and in stepping on the loose board it pushed, or as a witness said, “it scooted out” into the vacant space, and plaintiff fell and broke his leg.

Nothwithstanding the bad condition of the walk the public used it. It was not in such condition as to make it apparent it could not be used with safety, by reasonable care, and the instructions required the jury to find that plaintiff was using such care. It was a [220]*220case for the jury. [Graney v. St. Louis, 141 Mo. 180; Chilton v. St. Joseph, 143 Mo. 192; Devlin v. St. Louis, 252 Mo. 203; Howards v. New Madrid, 148 Mo. App. 57; Lueking v. Sedalia, 181 Mo. App. 203.]

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

Burnison v. Sounders
35 S.W.2d 619 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1931)
Snyder v. K.C., Mo. Central Coal Coke Co.
262 S.W. 695 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 S.W. 108, 188 Mo. App. 218, 1915 Mo. App. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcilhenny-v-kansas-city-moctapp-1915.