Cunningham v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 18 June 1888
• Citation: 8 S.W. 787,96 Mo. 53
• Parties: CUNNINGHAM v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 787

96 Mo. 53

CUNNINGHAM v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 18, 1888.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — LIABILITY FOR DEFECTS IN COURT-HOUSE — CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Under Const. Mo., art. 9, § 23, which requires the city of St. Louis to collect the state revenue, and "perform all other functions in relation to the state in the same manner as if it were a county," the relation of the city to its court-house is the same as that of the respective counties in the state to their court-houses, and, no action being given by statute against such municipalities for injuries resulting from negligence in relation to their court-houses, an action will not lie against said city by one injured by falling into a pit connected with its court-house.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; WILLIAM H. HORNER, Judge.

Action by Arthur I. Cunningham against the city of St. Louis for injuries. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,295.83. Defendant appealed.

Leverett Bell, for appellant. A. R. Taylor, for appellee.

NORTON, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries, in which plaintiff obtained judgment, from which the defendant has appealed. For his cause of action, plaintiff alleges in his petition that the city of St. Louis is a municipal corporation, and, by virtue of the laws of the state, owned and controlled the court-house building and grounds, bounded on the north by Chestnut street, on the west by Fifth street, on the south by Market street, and on the east by Fourth street; that plaintiff, while passing along a passage-way from the court-house entrance next south of that portion known as "Court-Room No. 2," endeavoring to go from said entrance to Fifth street, got out of his path, and fell into an open area or pit adjacent to said passage-way, and received the injury for which he sues. It is averred that said pit or area was, by reason of its proximity to said pathway, dangerous to persons while passing to and from said entrance; that it was unfenced, unguarded, and unlighted. The evidence tended to establish the averments of the petition, and that defendant was injured in the way set forth therein. The evidence also tended to show that the areas or pits, into one of which plaintiff fell had been constructed about 30 years ago for the purpose of furnishing light and ventilation to the basement of that wing of the court-house, and that the basement room of the building could not be utilized without light so furnished by the areas. At...