Gillespie v. City of Lincoln
Decision Date | 11 June 1892 |
Citation | 52 N.W. 811,35 Neb. 34 |
Parties | GILLESPIE v. CITY OF LINCOLN. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. A city is not liable at common law for the negligent acts of the members of its fire department.
2. Plaintiff's intestate was struck and killed by a ladder wagon or truck belonging to the fire department of the defendant city, through the negligence of the driver thereof, a member of said department, while driving along one of the streets of the city for the purpose of exercising a team of horses belonging to the department. Held, that the city is not liable.
Error to district court, Lancaster county; FIELD, Judge.
Action by Clark D. Gillespie, administrator of Clark D. Gillespie, deceased, against the city of Lincoln, to recover damages for the death of deceased. Judgment for defendant on demurrer to the petition. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.Chas. O. Whedon and C. E. Magoon, for plaintiff in error.
E. P. Holmes, City Atty., for defendant in error.
This case comes into this court on a petition in error. The error assigned is the sustaining of a demurrer by the district court of Lancaster county to the petition of plaintiff in error, the material part of which is as follows:
The contention of the defendant in error is that no liability exists on the part of a city like Lincoln for injuries occasioned by the negligent acts of members of its fire department. This exemption is placed upon the ground that, in performing their duties, firemen act in obedience to a legislative command, and, although appointed and paid by the city, they are to be regarded rather as officers charged with a public duty than as servants of the city. Public policy, it is claimed, forbids the imposition upon a city of liability for the negligence of this class of employes, since they are engaged in the discharge of a duty imposed by law for the welfare of the public, and from which the city, as a corporation, derives no benefit or advantage. Counsel for plaintiff in error, while not conceding the rule to be as stated, insists that it could have no application to the case at bar, for the reason that the statute under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Hattiesburg v. Geigor
... ... Vicksburg, 68 Miss ... 564; Missouri--Heller v. Sedalia, 53 Mo. 159; ... McKenna v. St. Louis, 60 Mo.App. 320; ... Nebraska--Gillespie v. Lincoln, 35 Neb. 34, 53 N.W ... 811; New Hampshire--Edgerly v. Concord, 59 N.H. 78; ... New York--Smith v. Rochester, 79 N.Y. 506; ... O'Meara ... ...
-
Rollow v. Ogden City
...decided by the same court, namely, the case of Aldrich v. Youngstown, supra. Nor is plaintiff's contention that the case of Gillespie v. City of Lincoln, supra, been overruled by the later case of Opocensky v. City of South Omaha, supra, tenable. After the Gillespie Case was decided the Leg......
-
Nicholson v. City of Detroit
... ... was held [129 Mich. 256] that the city was not liable, upon ... the ground that the city had no private interest in the ... service. Gillespie v. City of Lincoln (Neb.) 52 N.W ... 811, 16 L. R. A. 352. See, also, Hayes v. City of ... Oshkosh, 33 Wis. 314, 14 Am. Rep. 760; Wilcox v ... ...
-
Thompson v. City of Albion
... ... "A ... city is not liable at common law for the negligent acts of ... the members of its fire department." Gillespie v ... City of Lincoln, 35 Neb. 34, 52 N.W. 811 ... The law ... thus stated has been consistently followed. [115 Neb. 210] ... ...