Wright v. City of St. Cloud

• Decision Date: 29 June 1893
• Citation: 54 Minn. 94,55 N.W. 819
• Parties: WRIGHT v CITY OF ST. CLOUD.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

54 Minn. 94

55 N.W. 819

WRIGHTvCITY OF ST. CLOUD.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 29, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

If a person, with full and present knowledge of the defective condition of a sidewalk, and of the risks incident to its use, voluntarily attemps to travel upon it, when the defect could easily, and without appreciable inconvenience, have been avoided by going around it, he is not in the exercise of reasonable care, but must be presumed to have taken his chances, and if injury results he cannot recover from the city.

Appeal from district court, Stearns county; Searle, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Wright against the city of St. Cloud to recover for personal injuries received from a fall on defendant's sidewalk. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

M. S. Taylor, for appellant.

Geo. H. Reynolds, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, in permitting snow and ice to accumulate and remain upon a public sidewalk so as to render it unsafe for travel. The only question is whether the evidence justified the verdict. The accident occurred in the latter part of February, in the residence part of the city, about seven squares from its business center. Abutting this part of the sidewalk there was unoccupied property about 80 feet in width. On either side the occupants had kept the sidewalk in good order, but opposite this property the snow had not been removed during the entire winter, and the result was that it had gradually accumulated to the depth of from one to two feet, through which pedestrians had trodden a narrow, irregular path. As the result of successive falls and drifting of snow, and alternate thawing and freezing, in connection with the continual travel, this path had become quite rough, uneven, and icy, having gradually grown worse as the winter advanced. As different witnesses described it, “it had hollowed out, and left ridges;” “the humps, holes, and hollows were quite noticeable;” “it had hollowed out places sort of sidling and saucer shaped;” “was full of holes and hummocks from two to four inches deep;” “the bottom was uneven and sidling.” These and similar descriptions clearly photograph in the mind of any one familiar with such things a distinct picture of the irregular and uneven path trodden by pedestrians through snow as frequently seen on neglected sidewalks, in the winter time, in the residence portions of most towns, the condition of which grows gradually worse as the winter advances. About noon on a somewhat cold, but bright and pleasant, day, the plaintiff was traveling this walk, on her way home from church. She had not traveled this side of the street that winter, and had no previous knowledge of its condition. On reaching this part of the walk she admits that she looked at it, and saw its condition before she started across. She says she “had no idea it was as bad as it was,” but it is impossible, under the circumstances, that she did not see and understand its general character, and the consequent difficulty in traveling it, and the danger of slipping and falling in doing so. In fact she admits that she saw these ridges and hollows, and that it occurred to her, the minute she reached it, that it was a dangerous place to walk. She knew that the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street (on which her residence was) was in good condition, and that she could entirely avoid the danger by retracing her steps 100 feet to a street crossing, and going over to the other side of the street; but instead of doing so she proceeded, and, in going across, slipped and fell, and sustained the injuries complained of. The defendant's contentions are (1) that there was no evidence of its negligence; and (2) that the evidence conclusively showed...