Erd v. City of St. Paul

Decision Date23 March 1876
PartiesThomas Erd v. City of St. Paul
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

This action was brought in the court of common pleas of Ramsey county to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff by reason of a defective sidewalk, near the corner of Sixth and Fort streets, in the city of St. Paul. The case was transferred to the district court for the same county and tried before Wilkin, J. The plaintiff had a verdict for $ 300.00; a new trial was refused, and defendant appealed.

Order affirmed.

W. A Gorman and Morris Lamprey, for appellant.

I. V D. Heard, for respondent.

OPINION

Cornell, J.

The alleged injury in this case happened, as is claimed by plaintiff, by reason of the unsafe and insecure condition of the sidewalk at the place of the accident, which it was the duty of the defendant, under its charter, to keep in repair and reasonably safe for travel.

Whether the defendant corporation had knowledge of this condition of the sidewalk a sufficient length of time previous to the accident to have guarded against it, in the exercise of a reasonable diligence in the discharge of its duty to the public, was a material question of fact for the jury, under proper instructions from the court. The resolution of the common council of June 17, 1874, instructing the board of public works to make the sidewalk passable on the west side of Sixth street and across Fort street, (which was the place of the accident,) had a direct tendency to prove the existence of such knowledge, and was, therefore, properly received in evidence.

It is claimed by defendant that plaintiff knew the exact condition of the sidewalk and its dangerous character at the time of the occurrence of the accident, and had been in possession of such knowledge for some time prior thereto; that he might have avoided the injury, either by going around the defective sidewalk, by crossing over the street or upon the lots adjacent, or by taking other streets leading to his house which were free from any obstructions, though somewhat farther; and that his failing so to do, and attempt, under the circumstances, to cross over the dangerous place, constituted contributory negligence on his part such as would prevent any recovery, and, therefore, the court erred in its refusal to dismiss the action, on defendant's motion, at the close of plaintiff's testimony.

Plaintiff's residence was near the centre of the block, between Oak and Fort streets, and fronted on Sixth street, along which there was a good sidewalk, eight feet wide, made of plank laid crosswise upon three stringers running lengthwise of the walk. The accident occurred about eleven o'clock in the evening of June 19, and the testimony tended to show that some weeks prior thereto the city had commenced the work of sinking a catch basin in Sixth street, near its intersection with Fort street. For this purpose it had torn up the plank from the sidewalk for a space of some five feet, and had excavated there a hole about four feet deep and some five feet in diameter, extending into Sixth street, from the sidewalk, two and one-half feet, and the like distance under the sidewalk. To accommodate the travel the opening in the sidewalk thus made was kept covered over, while the employes were not actually engaged upon the work, by plank laid closely together across it and lengthwise of the walk, and so as to lap over some eighteen inches, upon either side of the opening, upon those portions of the sidewalk in place.

It is apparent that if the opening had been thus kept covered, and the plank, as thus laid, had been kept securely in place by being nailed, the only obstruction and danger to travel would have been that occasioned by the unevenness in the surface of the walk. The plank, however, were not nailed down as laid, and the accident happened by reason of one of these plank being out of place, so that when the plaintiff, in passing in the dark, stepped on the end of it, it tipped and threw him.

The employes of the contractor of the city had been at work there that day. Whether, on quitting work, they had left the plank thus displaced, or it had become so by accident, was a question of fact for the jury. The night was very dark and stormy. The place was not left lighted or guarded in any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Walker v. St. Paul City Railway Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1900
  • Fonda v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1898
    ...be held as a matter of law that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, it was at least a question for the jury. Erd v. City, 22 Minn. 443; Hutchinson v. St. Paul, 32 Minn. 398; Dahlberg v. Minneapolis, 32 Minn. 404; Shea v. St. Paul, 50 Minn. 395; Hendrickson v. Great Nort......
  • Maloy v. City of St. Paul
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 17, 1893
  • Wright v. City of St. Cloud
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1893
    ...of St. Paul, 14 Minn. 43, (Gil. 34;) Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. Co., 22 Minn. 165; La Riviere v. Pemberton, 46 Minn. 5; Erd v. City of St. Paul, 22 Minn. 443; Negligence, § 128. Geo. H. Reynolds, for respondent, cited: McLaughlin v. City of Corry, 77 Pa. St. 109; Todd v. City of Troy, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT