Title: Guthrie v. Powell

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

178 Kan. 587 (1955)
290 P.2d 834
FANNIE HOPE GUTHRIE, Appellee,
v.
J.C. POWELL and RICHARD V. WOODDELL, Appellants.
No. 39,871

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 10, 1955.
J.A. Herlocker, of Winfield, argued the cause, and Harry O. Janicke and *588 Warren D. Andreas, both of Winfield, were with him on the briefs for J.C. Powell, appellant.
G.D. McSpadden, of Winfield, argued the cause and was on the briefs for Richard V. Wooddell, appellant.
Frank G. Theis, of Arkansas City, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARVEY, C.J.:
This is an action for damages for personal injuries. Each of the defendants demurred to the petition upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. These demurrers were considered by the court and overruled. Defendants have appealed.
The real question in the case is whether the petition discloses such facts and circumstances as justify plaintiff in recovering under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and without alleging specific acts of negligence of the defendants, which resulted in her injuries. This requires an examination of the amended petition. The first paragraph of the amended petition names the parties and gives their residence. It continues:
Continuing, the petition alleged that plaintiff was 66 years of age; that the result of the steer falling upon her caused certain physical injuries, which were detailed; that plaintiff was treated by a certain physician and showed the charges for the treatment; and, that as a direct result of the injuries plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $15,000, for which sum judgment was prayed.
In this court appellants summarize their argument under four points, as follows:
We find no basis in the petition for arguing any of these points. Perhaps some of them could be raised either in defense or after a trial.
The definition of the term res ipsa loquitur, its purpose in a certain class of negligence cases and the force to be given it is fairly well outlined in Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 121 Kan. 648, 249 Pac. 599, where earlier Kansas cases and other authorities are cited, which case has been cited or quoted from with approval many times. The latest was in Waddle v. Brodbeck, 176 Kan. 583, 272 P.2d 1066. Since both parties have cited the Mayes case we find no occasion here to quote from it or from the many cases in which it has been followed.
Plaintiff is entitled to a trial in this case. The trial court did not err in overruling the demurrers of the defendants. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.