Ford v. City of Kinsley
| Decision Date | 04 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | 32259. |
| Citation | 141 Kan. 877,44 P.2d 255 |
| Parties | FORD v. CITY OF KINSLEY. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Slight and inconsiderable defects in sidewalk is not basis for actionable negligence as to city, even though pedestrian may trip and fall because thereof.
Where sidewalk was composed of cement blocks three feet square fact that one sagged below general level about one-half to three-quarters of an inch held such slight defect as not to furnish basis for negligence action against city by pedestrian who turned ankle, fell, and sustained injuries when she stepped on block.
1. Slight and inconsiderable defects in the sidewalk of a city street do not furnish basis for actionable negligence, even though a pedestrian may trip, fall, and injure herself on account of such a trivial defect.
2. In the sidewalk of a city street composed of cement blocks three feet square, one of these had sagged below the general level to a depth of from one-half inch to three-quarters of an inch. Plaintiff turned her ankle when she stepped on this block, fell, and was injured. Held, the defect in the sidewalk was so slight and inconsiderable that it did not furnish a basis for actionable negligence against the city.
3. The rule announced in Evans v. City of Hutchinson, 99 Kan. 477, 162 P. 342, syl. par. 2, criticized.
Appeal from District Court, Edwards County; Lorin T. Peters, Judge.
Action by May Ford against the City of Kinsley. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.
W. E Broadie and H. F. Thompson, both of Kinsley, for appellant.
A. L Moffat, of Kinsley, for appellee.
This was an action for damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in falling on the sidewalk of a city street.
The locus in quo was as follows: Sixth street is the principal thoroughfare in the city of Kinsley. It runs east and west. On the south side of the street is a sidewalk whose width is not shown. Fronting the north, on the south side of the street and sidewalk, is a business establishment known as Weinelt's Variety Store. The sidewalk was constructed, in part, of cement blocks about 3 feet square, and bordered by a curbing on the street side. One of these cement blocks next the curbing has sagged below the level of the other portions of the sidewalk. The exact variances in the level of this particular cement block from those next to it and to the curbing were as follows:
On its southwest corner .. 5/8 of an inch.
In this depressed cement block and near its north edge is an iron apparatus for controlling the water supply.
On November 20, 1933, the plaintiff, a woman of 50 years, parked her car next to the sidewalk in front of the variety store and shopped there for ten minutes. On leaving she walked towards her car; her ankle turned when she stepped on this depressed block; this caused her to fall; she struck her knee on the iron cut-off, and received various painfull and lasting injuries.
Hence this lawsuit. Plaintiff charged the city with negligence, alleging that the described defect had existed for several years, and that the city and its responsible officials had long known of it, and that they had negligently permitted the sidewalk to remain in such defective and dangerous condition. Plaintiff's petition particularized her injuries and damages, and prayed judgment for $5,000.
Defendant's answer contained a general denial, and, among other matters, specifically denied that the sidewalk was defective or dangerous.
The evidence developed no serious dispute on the controlling issue of fact. The jury was given a view of the sidewalk. It returned a general verdict for plaintiff for $500, and answered special questions, the most pertinent of which read:
Judgment was entered for plaintiff, and the city appeals, assigning various errors. The one most strongly urged is that the condition of the sidewalk, according to plaintiff's evidence most favorably considered, showed such a slight and inconsiderable defect that the trial court should have ruled as a matter of law that the city was not liable therefor.
The general rule is that merely factual questions of negligence are for a jury to decide, and ordinarily they cannot be disposed of as matters of law. In King v. City of Parsons, 95 Kan. 654, 149 P. 699, our state report is rather scant in its statement of facts, but the files of the state library (Briefs, 95 Kan. vol. 3) show that the sidewalk was made of bricks, that there was a depression about 4 feet long and 2 feet wide, and that some of the bricks lay slanting rather than flat, and some stood on edge, and that the center of the depression was 3 or 4 inches deep. Plaintiff stepped backward into that depression; her foot was caught in it; she fell and was injured. This court held that the question of the city's negligence was for the jury.
A case on which appellee strongly relies is Evans v. City of Hutchinson, 99 Kan. 477, 162 P. 342, where the syllabus conveys the suggestion that the depression in the sidewalk was only a half an inch deep, and that it had been caused by the scaling off of the cement crust in an area of 2 feet by 6 inches. In the opinion it would appear that, not only was there testimony that the depression was half an inch deep but other evidence that it was as much as three inches deep; but, whatever its depth, it was characterized as "the hole in the walk." How many miles of half-inch cement crust have scaled off the sidewalks of the cities of this state since the Hutchinson Case was decided? Is it still regarded as good law that our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lyon v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., 65807
...p 1, 708 P.2d 171 (1985). This "slight defect rule" has been in effect for municipalities since this court decided Ford v. City of Kinsley, 141 Kan. 877, 44 P.2d 255 (1935). This court examined analogous Kansas cases against the highway commission for highway defects and found that the Stat......
-
Elstun v. Spangles, Inc.
...though a pedestrian may trip, fall, and injure [himself or] herself on account of such a trivial defect." (Emphasis added.) Ford v. City of Kinsley, 141 Kan. 877, Syl. ¶ 1, 44 P.2d 225 (1935); see also Biby v. City of Wichita, 151 Kan. 981, Syl. ¶ 1, 101 P.2d 919 (1940) ("In an action again......
-
Wright v. City of Wichita
...therein, and to other of our cases holding that slight defects and irregularities are not actionable defects, citing Ford v. City of Kinsley, 141 Kan. 877, 44 P.2d 255; Biby v. City of Wichita, 151 Kan. 981, 101 P.2d 919; and Blankenship v. Kansas City, 156 Kan. 607, 135 P.2d 538. Under sep......
-
Line v. Sears & Roebuck and Co.
...defect" rule that negates the existence of a duty that might otherwise exist. See id. at 757, 217 P.3d at 453-54 (citing Ford v. City of Kinsley, 141 Kan. 877, Syl. ¶ 1, 44 P.2d 225 (1935)). In Ford, the Kansas Supreme Court held, "[s]light and inconsiderable defects in the sidewalk of a ci......