Berry v. Dole

• Decision Date: 21 November 1902
• Citation: 87 Minn. 471,92 N.W. 334
• Parties: BERRY v. DOLE et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

87 Minn. 471

92 N.W. 334

BERRY

v.DOLE et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 21, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; A. M. Harrison Judge.

Action by Andrew J. Berry against George A. Dole and another. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The complaint in a personal injury action held not to allege facts constituting a cause of action, for the reason that it contains no direct allegations that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by any act or omission of the defendants. J. M. Murray, for appellant.

Woods, Kingman & Wallace, for respondents.

START, C. J.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the district court of the county of Hennepin sustaining a general demurrer to his complaint. The here material allegations of the complaint are to the effect following: That on and for a long time prior to June 29, 1900, the defendants maintained in a public street of the city of Minneapolis a wooden structure or bridge over the gutter therein to facilitate passage of teams and wagons of their tenants and their customers into an alley upon their property and invited the public and the plaintiff to use the same, that on that day the wooden structure or bridge was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, in a defective, rotten, and unsafe condition, which condition was well known to defendants, although plaintiff had no notice or knowledge thereof; that on that day plaintiff, in the course of his employment as a servant of a customer of one of defendants' tenants, was lawfully and with due care, and by invitation of the defendants, driving over the bridge, from the alley to the street, a loaded wagon, upon which he was seated, when the bridge suddenly, and without fault of plaintiff, broke down and gave way under the wagon, and thereby caused it to lurch suddenly to one side, and throw plaintiff therefrom, head foremost, violently to the pavement of the street, whereby he sustained serious personal injuries. As against a demurrer, the facts essential to a cause of action must be directly alleged, and not by way of recital, argument, or inference. Tested by this rule, the complaint does not state a cause of action, in that it contains no allegation that the plaintiff was injured by reason of any negligent act on the part of the defendants. It is true that it alleges the disrepair and unsafe condition of the bridge, but it does not allege the fact that it was...