Carroll v. Allen
| Decision Date | 19 June 1897 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. ALLEN, Town Treasurer. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case certified from court of common pleas, Providence county.
Action by John A. Carroll against John B. Allen, town treasurer, for damages sustained by reason of defendant's negligence. Demurrer of defendant sustained, and case certified; amended declaration filed, and demurrer overruled.
Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff.
Albert R. Greene, for defendant.
The defendant demurred to the declaration in the common pleas division, and the demurrer was sustained by that court, with leave given plaintiff to amend. No jury trial having been claimed, the case was thereupon certified to this division, after which the plaintiff filed what he denominates an "amended declaration," to which the defendant also demurs. Treating the so-called "amended declaration" as having been incorporated into and now forming a part of the original declaration, as the pleader evidently intended it to be treated, we have before us for consideration said original declaration which was held to be bad by the common pleas division, together with the amendment thereto. The declaration alleges that it was the duty of the defendant town to keep the highway in question in good repair, and safe for travelers with their carriages, at all times; that it so negligently performed said duty, and so carelessly suffered the highway in question to be and remain out of repair, that a large hole or cavity was formed and left in the driveway thereof; and that, by reason of said hole or cavity, the wagon in which the plaintiff was riding, and which was being driven properly and with due care, suddenly and without notice struck into said hole or cavity, and the plaintiff was thrown to the ground from said wagon, and his right arm broken at the wrist, and he was otherwise injured. It also avers that a claim for compensation for said injuries was presented to the town council of said town; that more than 40 days have elapsed since said presentation; and that no satisfaction has been granted. The amendment alleges the duty of the town as aforesaid; its neglect to perform the same; the defective condition of the highway; the fact that the town had due notice of the time, place, and cause of said injury; that said notice was given as required by statute; that no satisfaction has been rendered to the plaintiff therefor within 40 days; and, also, in order to meet the objection of the common...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Montgomery
... ... Co. v. Smith, 163 Ala. 141, 50 So. 241; ... Coon v. Froment, 49 N.Y.S. 305; Olbert v ... Key, 93 S.W.2d 1048; Carroll v. Allen, 20 R.I ... 144. (6) If the phrase "caused or permitted" did ... submit two theories to the jury, such submission in the ... ...
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Smith
... ... but that they are synonymous. Such was the view of the Rhode ... Island court, in Carroll v. Allen, 20 R.I. 144, 37 ... A. 704 where the words "caused" and ... [50 So. 245] ... "suffered" were under consideration, and that with ... ...
-
City of Ardmore v. Fowler
...similar allegation was upheld against a general demurrer. See, also, Lord v. City of Mobile, 113 Ala. 360, 21 So. 366; Carroll v. Allen, etc., 20 R.I. 144, 37 A. 704; Storrs v. City of Grand Rapids, 110 Mich. 483, 68 N.W. 258. 2. The remaining assignments will be considered together. In sup......
-
City of Waco v. Ballard
...39, 17 L. Ed. 52; Noble v. City of Richmond, 31 Grat. (Va.) 271, 31 Am. Rep. 726. Cases holding to the contrary are: Carroll v. Allen, 20 R. I. 144, 37 Atl. 704; Union St. Ry. Co. v. Stone, 54 Kan. 83, 37 Pac. 1012; Lord v. City of Mobile, 113 Ala. 360, 21 South. 366; City of Mattoon v. Bar......