Smith v. Tripp
| Decision Date | 04 December 1880 |
| Citation | 13 R.I. 152 |
| Parties | STEPHEN G. SMITH v. BENJAMIN TRIPP, City Treasurer of the City of Providence. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
In trespass on the case a declaration charged that " said city… so carelessly and negligently kept and maintained that highway known as… and so carelessly and negligently suffered and allowed said highway to be and remain out of repair, as wrongfully and injuriously to turn and cause to flow upon the lands and estate of the plaintiff next adjoining to said highway, the water which otherwise and ordinarily, or naturally and but for the wrongful acts and omissions of the said city,… would not have flowed or run upon the plaintiff's lands and estate aforesaid, whereby, & c.
Held, on demurrer, affirming Wakefield v. Newell, 12 R.I. 75, that no cause of action was set forth.
Requisites of a good declaration in an action for negligence.
In case, for the neglect of a statutory duty, the plaintiff must show that the duty was imposed for his benefit or existed for his security from the injury suffered.
TRESPASS ON THE CASE. On demurrer to the declaration.
James Tillinghast, for plaintiff.
Nicholas Van Slyck, City Solicitor, for defendant.
The declaration, which contains only one count, alleges that " said city of Providence heretofore, to wit on the day of, A. D. 1874, and from thence hitherto by its agents officers, and servants so carelessly and negligently kept and maintained that highway in said city known as Traverse Street, at and near its intersection with Sheldon Street, and so carelessly and negligently suffered and allowed said Traverse Street to be and remain out of repair, as wrongfully and injuriously to turn and cause to flow upon the lands and estate of the plaintiff, next adjoining to said Traverse Street, the water which otherwise and ordinarily, or naturally and but for the wrongful acts and omissions of the said city and its agents, officers, and servants aforesaid, would not have flowed or run upon the plaintiff's lands and estate aforesaid, whereby," & c., concluding with a specification of damages.
The defendant demurs and contends that no cause of action is duly set forth. We think he is right. The requisites of a good declaration in an action for negligence are well stated by Willes, J., in Gautret v. Egerton L. R. 2 C. P. 371, 374. " It ought," he says, So too it is not enough to state a relation from which the duty may arise under certain circumstances, but, unless the duty necessarily results from the relation, the circumstances which give rise to it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlanta & C. Air Line Ry. Co. v. Gravitt
...the opinion of the court, Stiness, J., quotes the rule previously laid down in O'Donnell v. Railroad Co., 6 R. I. 211, and in Smith v. Tripp, 13 R.I. 152, that: "In action for neglect of duty, it is not enough for the plaintiff to show that the defendant neglected a duty, and that he would ......
-
Atlanta & C. Air-line Ry. Co v. Gravitt
...the opinion of the court, Stiness, J., quotes the rule previously laid down in O'Donnell v. Railroad Co., 6 R. I. 211, and in Smith v. Tripp, 13 R. I. 152, that: "In an action for neglect of duty, it is not enough for the plaintiff to show that the defendant neglected a duty, and that he wo......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Marbury Lumber Co.
...facts, should show." Thiele v. McManus, 3 Ind. App. 132, 28 N.E. 327. See, also, a statement and application of this doctrine in Smith v. Tripp, 13 R.I. 152; Kennedy Morgan, 57 Vt. 46; Railway Co. v. Stark, 38 Mich. 714; City of Buffalo v. Holloway, 7 N. Y. 493; Splittorf v. State, 108 N.Y.......
-
Barratt v. Burlingham, 82-359-A
...420 A.2d 841, 843 (1980); see also Orzechowski v. State, --- R.I. ---[PUB#PG=0000162,1222]", ---, 485 A.2d 545, 548 (1984); Smith v. Tripp, 13 R.I. 152, 154 (1880). In the instant case, when the police officer allowed Barratt to drive, his act was an exercise of discretion coming within the......