Moore v. State Highway Commission
| Decision Date | 08 July 1939 |
| Docket Number | 34346. |
| Citation | 92 P.2d 29,150 Kan. 314 |
| Parties | MOORE v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Whether an alleged defect is within statute authorizing recovery for damages resulting from a defect in a state highway is a question of law. Gen.St.1935, 68-419.
The presence, parallel to a township road intersecting a highway under control of State Highway Commission, of a dike which obstructed view of highway in one direction was not a "defect" in highway for which commission was liable to plaintiff who was injured in collision occurring as automobile in which plaintiff was riding was driven upon highway from township road. Gen.St. 1935, 68-419.
The placing of stop sign on township road 70 feet from state highway, which road intersected, did not constitute a "defect" such as would render State Highway Commission liable for injuries sustained by plaintiff when automobile in which she was riding was struck by another automobile when driven upon highway from road after having stopped at stop sign. Gen.St.1935, 68-419; Gen.St.Supp.1937 8-511.
The erection of a dike parallel to a township road which intersects a highway under the supervision and control of the state highway commission, the effect of which is to prevent travelers on the township road from seeing travelers on a part of the highway, does not create a defect in the highway for which the state highway commission is liable under G.S.1935, 68-419.
Appeal from District Court, Sedgwick County, Division No. 4; Isaac N. Williams, Judge.
Action by Nina Moore against the State Highway Commission to recover damages allegedly resulting because of a defect in a highway. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Clarence R. Sowers and Claude E. Sowers, both of Wichita, for appellant.
Lester M. Goodell, of Topeka, and W. E. Holmes, Howard L. Baker, and Edward F. Arn, all of Wichita, for appellee.
Plaintiff brought an action to recover damages from the state highway commission. The trial court sustained a demurrer to her petition and she appeals to this court.
The question presented is whether a particular highway was defective within the meaning of G.S.1935, 68-419, and the petition will be reviewed in view of that question.
It was alleged that about one-half mile west of Augusta, Kansas U.S. Highway No. 54, hereafter called the highway, which there runs east and west and is under the control and supervision of the defendant, is intersected by a township road running north and south which is hereafter referred to as the township road; that to the east of the township road and running north from the highway for a distance of one and one-half miles is a dike constructed by the city of Augusta with full knowledge of the defendant and by joint action between them; that the dike created a dangerous defect and obstruction in the highway; that the dike was erected at a height of approximately fifteen feet above the surface of the township road, extended north from the shoulders of the highway and completely blocked the vision of drivers of automobiles on the township road approaching the highway from the north as to cars coming from the east on the highway that the defendant further created a defect in the township road by erecting a stop sign at least seventy feet north of the highway on the west side of the township road instead of placing the sign on the north side of the highway; that on October 17, 1937, plaintiff was riding south on the township road in an automobile driven by another person, who stopped at the stop sign some seventy feet north of the highway and then proceeded south on the township road at about ten miles per hour until the highway was reached when speed was reduced; that vision of the driver to the east was obstructed by the dike; that when the automobile in which plaintiff was riding was driven upon the highway it was struck by a car being driven from the east to the west along the highway and in the collision plaintiff received injuries for which she sought damages. We also note the allegations that since the accident the stop sign has been moved to the intersection of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. Kansas City
... ... 1224, 34 ... S.W.2d 992, 994; Johnson v. State, 186 A.D. 399, 173 ... N.Y.S. 701, 702, 703, 704, affirmed 227 N.Y. 610, ... 811, 42 A. L ... R. 571, 572, 573; Phillips v. State Highway Comm., ... 146 Kan. 112, 68 P.2d 1087, 1088; Moore v. State Highway ... ...
-
Sheen v. State Highway Commission
...Highway Commission, 143 Kan. 873, 877, 57 P.2d 424; Parsons v. State Highway Commission, 146 Kan. 476, 72 P.2d 75; Moore v. State Highway Commission, 150 Kan. 314, 92 P.2d 29. This court has frequently been called upon to enunciate the principles to be observed in determining the legal ques......
-
Bradshaw v. City of Seattle
...Commissioners of Cowley County, 111 Kan. 542, 207 P. 785; Lambel v. [City of] Florence, 115 Kan. 111, 222 P. 64; Moore v. State Highway Commission, 150 Kan. 314, 92 P.2d 29.' We think the same reasoning applies to cities as well as to counties. It must be borne in mind that the city had no ......
-
Sparks, Pro Ami v. Kansas City, Mo.
...236 Pac. 811, 42 A.L.R. 571, 572, 573; Phillips v. State Highway Comm., 146 Kan. 112, 68 Pac. (2d) 1087, 1088; Moore v. State Highway Comm., 150 Kan. 314, 92 Pac. (2d) 29, 30; Archip v. City of Sioux City, 241 N.W. 300, 303. (4) The danger in this street was directly created by the act of d......