Archip v. City of Sioux City

1 Citing case

  1. Sparks v. Kansas City

    160 S.W.2d 819 (Mo. Ct. App. 1942)   Cited 8 times

    Mo., 1929; Brown v. Salt Lake City, 33 Utah 222, 93 P. 570, 572, 573; City and County of Denver v. Taylor, 88 Colo. 89, 292 P. 594, 595, 596; Guthrie v. City of St. Charles (Mo.), 152 S.W.2d 91, 99; Gray v. Kurn, 345 Mo. 1027, 137 S.W.2d 558, 566; 43 C.J., p. 1186, sec. 1957; 19 R.C.L., p. 1041, sec. 330. (3) The failure to maintain a retaining wall or barricade at the margin of the street was not any defect in the condition of any street or thoroughfare within the meaning of sec. 7493, R.S. Mo., 1929 (sec. 7637, R.S. Mo. 1939). Hence, written notice was not required. Wolf v. Kansas City, 296 Mo. 95, 246 S.W. 236, 240; Koontz v. City of St. Louis, 230 Mo. 128, 89 S.W.2d 586, 588; 43 C.J., p. 1186, sec. 1957; 19 R.C.L., p. 1041, sec. 330; Roy v. Kansas City, 204 Mo. App. 332, 224 S.W. 132 135; Bohm v. Racette, 118 Kan. 670, 236 P. 811, 42 A.L.R. 571, 572, 573; Phillips v. State Highway Comm., 146 Kan. 112, 68 P.2d 1087, 1088; Moore v. State Highway Comm., 150 Kan. 314, 92 P.2d 29, 30; Archip v. City of Sioux City, 241 N.W. 300, 303. (4) The danger in this street was directly created by the act of defendant City itself in constructing this street at the edge of the precipice without a guardrail or barricade. In such situation, the statute requiring written notice is inapplicable. Sloper v. City of Quiney, 16 N.E.2d 14, 16; Williams v. City of Nashville, 145 Tenn., 668, 238 S.W. 86, 87; Hilson v. City of Memphis, 221 S.W. 851, 853; Lyon v. City of Binghampton, 256 A.D. 397, 10 N.Y.S.2d 951, 954; Kelly v. City of Butte, 44 Mont. 115, 119 P. 171, 172; Pye v. City of Mankato, 38 Minn. 536, 38 N.W. 621.