Vuckis v. Terry

• Decision Date: 18 November 1932
• Docket Number: No. 14483.,14483.
• Citation: 183 N.E. 104,98 Ind.App. 256
• Parties: VUCKIS v. TERRY.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

98 Ind.App. 256

183 N.E. 104

VUCKIS

v.TERRY.

No. 14483.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

Nov. 18, 1932.

Appeal from Superior Court, St. Joseph County; J. Fred Bingham, Judge.

Action by Magdaline Vuckis against Mary C. Terry. From judgment for defendant, on demurrer to plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Shively & Arnold, D. D. Nemeth, and John Degnan, all of South Bend, for appellant.

Parker, Crabill, Crumpacker & May, Woodson S. Carlisle, and Geo. N. Beamer, all of South Bend, for appellee.

KIME, P. J.

Appellant (plaintiff below) sued the appellee for damages for personal injuries received by her when she tripped over an iron pipe projected approximately four inches above the ground in a so-called terrace, or grass plot, between the sidewalk and curb, abutting a vacant lot owned by appellee in the city of South Bend, Ind. The complaint alleged negligence of the appellee in the creation and maintenance of a nuisance in violation of an ordinance of such city.

A demurrer to appellant's complaint was sustained. The appellant refused to plead further, and the trial court entered judgment for the appellee, and that plaintiff take nothing by her suit.

The error assigned relates to the action of the trial court in sustaining the appellee's demurrer.

The demurrer of appellant to appellee's complaint, which was in one paragraph, questions the sufficiency of the facts to constitute a cause of action. The complaint, at its outset, alleges the location of the lot in question, its ownership by appellee, that same was within the corporate limits of the city of South Bend, Ind., and that at all times therein mentioned there was in full force and effect in said city an ordinance, the title of which is as follows: “An ordinance protecting the public health, providing for the cutting of weeds and disposal thereof, declaring nuisances and providing for their abatement, and matters relating thereto.” The complaint then proceeds to set out in their entirety the several sections of said ordinance, not all of which we deem necessary to set out in this opinion. Section 2 says: “It shall be the duty of every owner of real estate, within the corporate limits of said city of South Bend, State of Indiana, to cut and haul away all weeds or other rank vegetation growing upon his premises, or to cause same to be done.” Following is the latter part of the complaint: “Plaintiff further says that immediately in front of said lot and upon the same, and between that portion thereof devoted to sidewalk and that portion thereof devoted to curb, and within said South Michigan Street, the defendant maintained a terrace on the 17th day of June, 1929, which defendant carelessly and negligently, and in violation of said ordinance permitted to grow rank with weeds, tall grass, and other vegetation and notwithstanding the defendant had then and there upon said terraced portion of said lot a projecting iron pipe projecting from the surface of the ground approximately four inches, and totally obscured by said weeds, vegetation and rank growth, and except for said weeds, vegetation and rank growth of grass maintained and permitted by the defendant as aforesaid, the said iron pipe and the projection thereof would have been visible to persons and pedestrians passing over and along said sidewalk and onto the said street from said sidewalk and from said street to said sidewalk, and thereby could have avoided contact with said projecting iron pipe; but the defendant, in disregard of her duties under the ordinance aforesaid, carelessly, negligently and unlawfully permitted the said weeds, and vegetation to grow rank and obscure the said pipe upon said terrace, and the plaintiff, on the 17th day of June, 1929, in passing from said street to said sidewalk, over said terrace, and ignorant of the fact that hidden among said weeds and rank growth was said projecting pipe, did come in contact therewith and tripped thereon and fell and injured herself about the body, face and arms and particularly her feet, toes and lower part of her limbs were bruised, etc., etc.”

[1][2][3] As we view the complaint, its principal theory...