Woods v. City of Poplar Bluff

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woods v. City of Poplar Bluff

116 S.W. 1109, 136 Mo. App. 155, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 16

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 9, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 S.W. 1109 (Woods v. City of Poplar Bluff) 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

Woods v. City of Poplar Bluff, 116 S.W. 1109, 136 Mo. App. 155, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 16 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODE, J.

This case is for injuries received by respondent in falling on a sidewalk in bad repair. Her judgment will have to be reversed because the court permitted the street commissioner to testify he repaired the sidewalk after the accident. This testimony was objected to and there was no necessity to receive it inorder to prove the sidewalk was a public one which it was the duty of the city to repair; for this was admitted. Neither did it come .into the evidence incidentally in proving some other material fact. The direct question was propounded to the witness whether, as street commissioner, he had repaired the walk and he was allowed to answer. The ruling was erroneous. There was evidence for defendant the walk was in a reasonably safe condition, and this issue was in contest. The admission of the incompetent evidence regarding [157]*157subsequent repairs was therefore prejudicial. [Bailey v. Kansas City, 189 Mo. 503; Miller v. Canton, 123 Mo. App. 325.]

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

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

GOODE, J.

This case is for injuries received by respondent in falling on a sidewalk in bad repair. Her judgment will have to be reversed because the court permitted the street commissioner to testify he repaired the sidewalk after the accident. This testimony was objected to and there was no necessity to receive it inorder to prove the sidewalk was a public one which it was the duty of the city to repair; for this was admitted. Neither did it come .into the evidence incidentally in proving some other material fact. The direct question was propounded to the witness whether, as street commissioner, he had repaired the walk and he was allowed to answer. The ruling was erroneous. There was evidence for defendant the walk was in a reasonably safe condition, and this issue was in contest. The admission of the incompetent evidence regarding [157]*157subsequent repairs was therefore prejudicial. [Bailey v. Kansas City, 189 Mo. 503; Miller v. Canton, 123 Mo. App. 325.]

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.W. 1109, 136 Mo. App. 155, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-city-of-poplar-bluff-moctapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack