Thomas v. City of Kennett
| Decision Date | 02 July 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 13990.,13990. |
| Citation | 178 S.W. 254 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. CITY OF KENNETT. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by E. G. Thomas against the City of Kennett. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Bradley & McKay, of Kennet, for appellant. Donaldson & Tribble and Orville Zimmerman, all of Kennett, for respondent.
Action for damages to a horse while impounded in the public pound of the city of Kennett. The petition alleges that the city, "in violation of its duty to keep said pound pen in a reasonably safe condition, so that the animals put therein might not be injured, had permitted said pound pen to become in a dangerous condition, in this, to-wit: That at the time the plaintiff's horse was put in said pen, there was scattered over said pen a great number of pieces of timber and plank and boards in which nails had been driven and that a great number of these nails were sticking up so that said pound pen was in a dangerous condition at the time plaintiff's horse was put therein." Averring that the horse had stepped on a nail projecting from one of these boards and had been injured, plaintiff demands judgment for damages.
A demurrer was interposed, attacking the petition on two grounds: First, that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, because the city is not liable for negligence of its officers "in the enforcement of law or ordinances or powers conferred for the public good and not for private gain." The court sustained the demurrer on the second ground and dismissed the case.
The petition, in charging that, the city, in violation of its duty to keep the pound in a reasonably safe condition, had permitted it to become in a dangerous condition, and in its specification of negligence, that the pound was not kept in a safe condition, in that boards with nails projecting from them were scattered over it and allowed to remain on the ground, charges acts or omissions on the part of the officers and employées of the city concerning a public duty of the character and for which the city is not responsible. Ulrich v. City of St. Louis, 112 Mo. 138, 20 S. W. 466, 34 Am. St. Rep. 372; Cassidy v. City of St. Joseph, 247 Mo. 197, 152 S. W. 306; Wilks v. City of Caruthersville, 162 Mo. App. 492, 142 S. W. 800.
The demurrer was properly sustained.
The judgment of the circuit court Is...
To continue reading
Request your trial