Case Name: A. F. McVeigh, Appellee, v. The Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, Appellant
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1912-11-09
Citations: 88 Kan. 13
Docket Number: No. 17,406
Parties: A. F. McVeigh, Appellee, v. The Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
A. F. McVeigh, Appellee, v. The Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, Appellant.
No. 17,406.
opinion denying a rehearing.
HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.
Railroads—Damage by Fire—Negligence—Pleadings. In an action against a railroad company for damages caused by fire it is sufficient merely to allege that the fire was caused by the operation of the railroad, without pleading any specific kind of negligence.
Appeal from Anderson district court.
Opinion denying a rehearing filed November 9, 1912.
Reaffirmed.
(For original opinion, see 87 Kan. 527, 124 Pac. 898.)
John W. Madden, and W. W. Brown, both of Parsons, and J. G. Johnson, of Garnett, for the appellant.
Noah L. Bowman, of Garnett, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The defendant asks for a rehearing because the opinion fails to refer to the defendant's motion for an order for more definite averments in the petition. The motion in substance was to require the plaintiff to state the particular acts of its employees whereby the running of the train caused the fire, and wherein the running of the engine and train was negligent. The following quotation from the opinion in Railway Co. v. Garrison, 66 Kan. 625, 72 Pac. 225, is applicable to the question presented by this motion:
"It was said in St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Snaveley, 47 Kan. 637, 28 Pac. 615, that in such a case negligence need not be pleaded at all, it being sufficient merely to allege that the fire was caused by the operation of the railroad, because, under the statute, that is all that need be proved." (p. 626.)
In that case, however, the specific allegation was made that the defendant was negligent in the use of its engine, and it was held that, having thus restricted his allegation, the plaintiff should be required to disclose what was meant by the averment. Similar restrictive words were not used in this petition.
The opinion is pertinent to the motion as well as to the principal issue.
The petition for rehearing is denied.