Anderson v. City of Minneapolis
| Decision Date | 23 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 20559.,20559. |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Daniel Fish, Judge.
Action by Breta Anderson against the City of Minneapolis. The action was dismissed. and from an order denying new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
A notice of claim under section 1786, G. S. 1913, for loss or injury sustained on account of a defect in a public street, sidewalk, or public grounds of a city sufficiently states the circumstances if the defect causing the injury is pointed out so that a full investigation may be had. It need not be as specific as the complaint in an action to enforce the claim, but must assign the same defect as the cause of the injury. Under this rule, a ‘patch of ice,’ given in the notice as the cause of plaintiff's injury, is a sufficient designation of the circumstances to admit proof of ‘an uneyen ridge of ice,’ the defect alleged in the complaint. Arctander & Nordbye, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
C. D. Gould and W. G. Compton, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.
The court dismissed the action on the ground that the notice of claim against the defendant was insufficient, and plaintiff appeals from the order denying a new trial.
The complaint alleges that the city negligently allowed ice to accumulate on the public sidewalk in front of the fire house at Fourth street and Fifteenth Avenue South in the city of Minneapolis, which said accumulation of ice was, to the knowledge of defendant, uneven, round, slippery, and ridgelike, and that by reason thereof plaintiff slipped, in passing over said sidewalk, fracturing her leg. Under such cases as Wright v. City of St. Cloud, 54 Minn. 94, 55 N. W. 819, and Smith v. City of Cloquet, 120 Minn. 50, 139 N. W. 141, the complaint would seem to state a cause of action, and the learned trial court so held.
Section 1786, G. S. 1913, provides, in substance, that no action for damages shall be maintained against any city on account of loss or injury sustained by reason of any defect in its streets, sidewalks, or other public works or grounds unless ‘a notice in writing stating the time, place and circumstances thereof’ is served on the city council within 30 days after the loss or injury. A notice in this instance was served in time, but the trial court was of the opinion that ‘the circumstances' of the injury were not adequately stated, and therefore the action must fail. This is the only question in the appeal; for, upon this record, it cannot be said that the obstruction was created by a city department in the performance of its function as a governmental agency, so as to absolve the city from liability, in view of the allegations of the complaint that the obstruction and the dangerous condition thereby created was known to the city.
The objection of the notice is to inform the city of the claim, while the facts upon which it is based are fresh, so that upon investigation it may be intelligently adjusted without litigation, if just, and also to enable the city to obtain proper evidence to efficiently defend in court, if the demand be exorbitant or without merit. The notice need not state the circumstances or facts with that fullness and accuracy required in a pleading. In a personal injury claim it is sufficient if it specifies the cause of the injury, so that the officers or agents...
To continue reading
Request your trial