Howard v. City of Osage City

Citations

• 89 Kan. 205
• 132 P. 187
• 1913 Kan. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Negligence — Open Ditch in Street — Evidence. The plaintiff alleged that the ditch in' which she was injured had prior to nightfall on the day in question been bridged or filled at crossings other than the one where the injury occurred. Held, that evidence of the condition in which such other crossings were left was competent to show how the defendants had treated the matter of guarding against accident along the line of the ditch and whether they had used their own usual care in relation to the crossing in question.</p> <p>2. - Repairs Made Subseqitent to Accident — Competent Evidence. Repairing or making a place safe after an accident has occurred there may properly be shown. The consequent reluctance of parties thus to guard against repeated injuries for fear they will thereby furnish evidence tending to show their prior negligence is not deemed of equal importance with protection against injury to life or limb.</p> <p>3. Verdict — Supported by Competent Evidence — Not Disturbed. The rules that a verdict or finding supported by competent evidence must stand, and that city streets and crossings are made to walk on and to he assumed as safe for the purpose, followed.</p>