Pollock's Adm'R v. Louisville
| Decision Date | 11 June 1877 |
| Parties | Pollock's administrator v. Louisville. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
The appellant, as administrator of Hattie Pollock, deceased, brought this action against the city of Louisville to recover damages, under section 3 of chapter 57 of the General Statutes, for the loss of the life of his intestate through the alleged willful negligence of certain police officers.
The city, by its answer, put in issue all the material allegations of the petition.
At the conclusion of the evidence the court, on the motion of the city attorney, directed the jury to find for the defendant, which was done, and a judgment was rendered in bar of the action. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The first objection taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the court erred in giving a peremptory instruction after evidence had been introduced by the city. But that error, if it be one, did not prejudice the substantial rights of the appellant, if, as contended for the city, there was no evidence even conducing to establish a cause of action against it.
The charter requires that the city shall have and maintain a police force. In obedience to that requirement, a police force was organized by the appointment of the necessary officers and policemen. Two policemen appointed by the city arrested the appellant's intestate, without a warrant, on a charge of infanticide, and removed her to the jail used in common by the city and the commonwealth. It was alleged, and the evidence conduced in some degree to establish, that the officers knew the condition of the intestate, and were informed that it would greatly endanger her life to remove her, and that her death was caused by her removal. Whether the evidence would have warranted the jury in finding that the officers were guilty of willful negligence in removing her, and that her death was caused by the removal, we need intimate no opinion; for, conceding both these facts to have been established, we think the appellant failed to make out his case.
The statute provides that "if the life of any person . . is lost or destroyed by the willful neglect of another person . . or corporation, their agent or servants, then the widow, heir, or personal representative of the deceased shall have a right to sue such person or . . . corporation, and recover punitive damages for the loss or destruction of the life aforesaid."
Conceding (without intending to so decide) that municipal corporations are embraced by the statute, we proceed to inquire whether the city is liable under its provisions for the willful negligence of policemen appointed by it in making arrests upon charges of felony.
The crime with which the intestate was charged was an offense against the commonwealth, and not against the city. The policemen were therefore not engaged about the municipal and local business of the city, nor in the discharge of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial