Carlson v. Mid-Continent Development Co.

Citations

• 103 Kan. 464
• 173 P. 910
• 1918 Kan. LEXIS 296

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Nuisance — Pipe Line 'in Highway■ — Line in Hands of Receiver — Injuries — Liability of Defendant Company. A gas company built its pipe line in a highway more than twelve inches above the ground, in such a way as to constitute a nuisance, and by reason of the defective construction a horse driven by the plaintiff caught his feet under the pipe and in struggling to extricate himself overturned the buggy, throwing the plaintiff out and injuring him. The pipe line and other property of the defendant passed into the hands of a receiver after the line was built and was in his possession when the injury was sustained by plaintiff, but had been restored to the company before the trial of the action begun by plaintiff against the company to recover damages for the injury. Held, that the company having negligently created the nuisance which caused the injury, it is liable although the pipe line was in the control of the receiver when plaintiff suffered the injury.</p> <p>2. Same — Pipe Line in Highway — Liability for Injuries without Proof of Negligence. The building of such a structure was not only negligence, but it w;as a wrong which rendered the party creating it liable without proof of negligence, and the* fact that the court in its instructions placed the burden upon the plaintiff of proving negligence did not materially prejudice the defendant.</p> <p>3. Same — Evidence Pipe Line Buried after Accident. The admission of testimony that the receiver moved and buried the pipe line after the accident did not, under the circumstances, constitute prejudicial error.</p> <p>4. Same — Evidence—Rulings of Court. The refusal of the court to strike out the testimony of a witness upon the alleged grounds that it was contrary to all of the evidence on the question and untrue, is not error.</p>