Knight v. Kansas City

• Decision Date: 05 June 1905
• Citation: 87 S.W. 1192,113 Mo. App. 561
• Parties: KNIGHT v. KANSAS CITY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

87 S.W. 1192

113 Mo. App. 561

KNIGHT v. KANSAS CITY.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 5, 1905.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—DEFECTIVE STREETS —PERSONAL INJURIES—DAMAGES.

1. Where, in an action against a city for injuries from a defective street, it was shown that the street had been used by the public for many years; that there were a sidewalk, curbing, and a sewer, and a street lamp at its intersection with another street; defendant did not raise the question as to whether or not the thoroughfare was in fact a public street; all questions put to witnesses referred to the street as a public street, and the instructions on both sides treated it as such—the court had a right to assume that it was a public street.

2. Where a defect in a street had existed for about six months before an injury was caused thereby, the city had a reasonable time in which to discover and remedy the defect.

3. In an action for personal injuries, a recovery for money expended for medicine should not be allowed when the evidence fails to show the amount expended therefor, and evidence of the value of medical treatment furnished by a physician is not sufficient to show the value of the medicine.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; J. H. Slover, Judge.

Action by Charles L. Knight against Kansas City. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. J. Williams and J. W. Garner, for appellant. Scarritt, Griffith & Jones, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

The plaintiff's suit is to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him on December 3, 1903, caused by an alleged defective sidewalk on the south side of Twenty-Third street, near Montgall avenue, in Kansas City, Mo. The plaintiff fell and was injured at a point on said sidewalk which had been taken off for the purpose of constructing a granitoid sidewalk on Montgall avenue, which left a step-off of about 10 inches to the latter walk, and it had been left in this condition for several months prior to the injury. The plaintiff, while it was dark, fell by reason of said step-off, and was injured. The plaintiff obtained a judgment for $4,000, from which defendant appealed.

The principal contention of defendant is that it was not shown that Twenty-Third street was a public street of the city. The evidence upon that question was slight. It was shown that the street in question had been used by the public many years, which of itself would not make it a public street of the city; but it was shown that there was a street lamp at its intersection of Montgall avenue, and that there were a sidewalk, curbing, and a sewer. However, as plaintiff was permitted to assume as proven the city's ownership of the streets without objections, full proof should not be exacted. Oyler v. Ry. Co., 88 S. W. 162; Kerr v. Ry. Co. (decided at this term) 87 S. W. 596; Geiser v. Ry. Co., 61 Mo. App. 462; Keltenbaugh v. Ry., 34 Mo. App. 148; Lindsay v. Ry., 36 Mo. App. 51. The defendant did not raise the question by a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence. All the questions put to witnesses both on examination in chief and on cross-examination referred to the street as a public street. And the instructions on both sides treated it as such. In Dickson v....