Court Opinion

ID: 9833267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:34:25.470408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.067342
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The record in this case is silent as to who owns and controls the land across which the path runs, and we were led into the statement that it ran across the appellant’s yard by the fact that it appeared to have been briefed upon that theory. The plaintiff’s petition does not state that the path is on appellant’s land; neither does it allege that it is not upon it. And it is likewise true that it does not appear either from the pleadings or proof whether the place where the child was hurt was upon land under appellant’s control.
In paragraphs 8, 10, and 11 of defendant’s first amended answer it is alleged under oath that Sybol Polk was a trespasser upon the defendant’s premises at the time she was hurt. The first supplemental petition denies the allegations in paragraphs. 8 and 10, but does not deny the charge that she was a trespasser, as' set forth in paragraph 11. This, hov/ever, is unnecessary, for we have held that, when an allegation is once denied, it is not essential that the same should be denied again, no matter how many times the pleader sees proper again to allege the same fact. When once denied, it would add nothing to it to deny the same allegation again and would serve no useful purpose. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Pennington, 166 S. W. 464.
Therefore, since the pleadings do not show to whom the land belongs, where the path runs, and where the appellee was injured, we could neither hold that she was a licensee or a trespasser. Neither does the proof show what the status of the property is where the injury occurred.
The first essential element of actionable negligence is the violation of a duty. If there is no duty, there is no negligence. The plaintiff must state and prove facts sufficient to show what the duty is, and that the defendant owes that duty to the plaintiff. *1181Shearman & Redfield on the Law of Neg. vol. 1, p. 14, § 8 (6th Ed.). The same author again says:
“As a matter of course, there can be no negligence where there is no breach of duty. It must appear, therefore, not only that the defendant owed a duty, but also that it did not perform it.” Shearman & Redfield, vol. 1, p. 30, § 15.
Since the pleadings and proof are in such condition that we cannot tell who owned the property where appellee was injured, we have concluded that we were in error in reversing and rendering judgment, and that instead the judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded for trial; and it is so ordered.