Court Opinion

ID: 9842791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:18:25.785539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:47.678185
License: Public Domain

MURRAH
(dissenting).
I quite agree that under Kansas law a utility company, like a municipality, is not liable to a pedestrian for slight defects or variations in the surface of its manhole cover. See Blankenship v. Kansas City, 156 Kan. 607, 135 P.2d 538. But there is nothing in that salutary doctrine or the Kansas cases adhering to it which requires or justifies a directed verdict on the grounds that a manhole cover can never become so smooth and slippery as to create a dangerous condition for which one charged with its maintenance could be liable in tort. Whether intentionally or not, we have by this decision, undoubtedly so construed Kansas law. And this construction is inconsistent with the fundamental duty to maintain the manhole cover in a reasonably safe condition.
The plaintiff testified that after alighting from her car at the curb, she walked carefully across the snow-covered sidewalk and onto the manhole cover at the entrance to her place of business; and that she slipped and fell, causing injuries. Two manhole covers were introduced in evidence, one a standard type with a diamond-treaded surface; the other one, involved here, was worn and smooth. The question was whether by reason of wear the manhole cover, wet from snow, created a hazardous condition for which the utility would be liable. In my judgment, these facts presented a question for the jury under proper instructions.