Anderson v. City of St. Cloud

• Decision Date: 05 February 1900
• Docket Number: 11,929 - (214)
• Citation: 81 N.W. 746,79 Minn. 88
• Parties: JOHN ANDERSON and Others v. CITY OF ST. CLOUD
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

81 N.W. 746

79 Minn. 88

JOHN ANDERSON and Others v. CITY OF ST. CLOUD

Nos. 11,929 - (214)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

February 5, 1900

Action in the district court for Stearns county to recover $840 damages for injuries to a block of granite and a wagon caused by a defective bridge. The case was tried before Searle, J who directed a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Municipal Corporation -- Strength of Bridge.

In maintaining a bridge for public use, a municipality is not limited in its duty by the ordinary business use of the structure, but is required to provide for what may be fairly anticipated for the proper accommodation of the public at large in the various occupations which, from time to time, may be pursued in the locality where it is situated.

Municipal Corporation -- Question for Jury.

After the construction of the bridge, the question whether it has been maintained in a suitable condition for public use is ordinarily, and in this case was, a question for the determination of a jury upon the evidence.

Evidence -- Contributory Negligence.

The evidence in this case considered, and held to disclose such an obvious want of care on the part of the parties who sustained the injury in the use of the bridge, whereby they suffered their loss, that they cannot recover.

Calhoun & Bennett, for appellants.

Defendant having built a bridge designed to carry a load of 15 tons, using only 25 per cent. of its real strength, was bound to keep it in such repair as to accommodate travel of that kind; -- at least to accommodate such use as might probably be made of it, and cannot escape liability by showing that the load was larger than the usual loads hauled across it. Having built a bridge of that character, it amounted to an invitation to the public to use it as a 15-ton bridge. Where a bridge is originally built strong enough to support a designated weight, it must not be weakened so as to destroy its capacity to carry such a load by changes or repairs. Fulton v. Township, 52 Mich. 146; Sewell v. City, 75 N.Y. 45; Gregory v. Inhabitants, 80 Mass. 242; Stebbins v. Township, 60 Mich. 214; Yordy v. Marshall, 80 Iowa 405; McCormick v. Township, 112 Pa. St. 185, 196; Bonebrake v. Board, 141 Ind. 62; City v. Carver (Ind.) 26 N.E. 42. Plaintiffs were not, as matter of law, guilty of contributory negligence. Apple v. Board, 127 Ind. 553; Board v. Creviston, 133 Ind. 39; Fisher v. Village, 133 N.Y. 527; Board v. Legg, 110 Ind. 479; Walker v. Decatur, 67 Iowa 307.

George W. Stewart, for respondent.

At common law no obligation rests on municipalities to keep bridges in repair. Such obligation exists only by virtue of legislative enactment. No such liability is imposed on defendant. Sp. Laws 1889, c. 6, § 1. The city owed the public no duty except to keep this bridge in condition to accommodate ordinary traffic, and such as the city might reasonably foresee would pass over it. Wilson v. Town, 47 Conn. 59; Gregory v. Inhabitants, 80 Mass. 242; Board v. Creviston, 133 Ind. 39; Yordy v. Marshall, 80 Iowa 405; Moore v. Township, 118 Mich. 425, 76 N.W. 977. The foregoing are all cases in which it was held that the question as to whether the load was unusual or extraordinary was for the jury. In the following cases it was determined as a matter of law by the court: McCormick v. Township, 112 Pa. St. 185; Clulow v. McClelland, 151 Pa. St. 583; Board v. Chipps, 131 Ind. 56; City v. Carver (Ind.) 26 N.E. 42. Plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence. City v. Carver, supra. Plaintiffs assumed the risk of injury from hauling this load over the bridge.

OPINION

LOVELY, J.

Plaintiffs had occasion to move a large granite block, weighing about nine tons, from their quarry, near the city of St. Cloud, to the Northern Pacific depot on the opposite side of the river. The city had built a steel truss bridge across the river two years before, with an estimated power, at the time, of sustaining burdens of 15 tons weight. This structure connected the two opposite river termini of St. Germain street, one of the public thoroughfares of the city, in a continuous way for travel; was generally used; and under its charter the municipality were required to and assumed the duty of maintaining it in a suitable condition for use by pedestrians, teams, and an electric street-car line. The bridge was 680-odd feet in length, had a 24-feet roadway between the sidewalks, and the north portion was occupied by the tracks of the street-car company, leaving a sufficient space, however, for carriages and teams to pass each other in the clear, and there was nothing to prevent the use of the portion on which the car tracks were situated for the same purpose, if occasion required. At the time in question the flooring of the bridge, which was of wood, had become worn down by use from its original thickness of four inches to an inch and three-quarters, and was water-soaked on top, though perfectly sound for an inch and a quarter below the surface. Notice of this condition had been conveyed to the city, and it does not appear that any repairs had been made since the bridge was built.

There was also a wagon bridge over the river at another point in the city, as well as a railroad bridge of the Great Northern Company, on which plaintiffs could have transferred their granite block to the depot of the Northern Pacific Company by payment of switching charges, but the persons to whom it had been sold desired to have it delivered at the depot of the latter company by team, and the plaintiffs placed it upon a heavy truck, and with several teams of horses undertook to haul it over the wagon way of the St. Germain Street bridge. When they reached a point one-third of the way from the opposite side, the wheels on one side of the truck broke through the plank flooring, the stone slipped from its place, and fell upon the river bank below, considerably damaging aging the bridge, and practically ruining the stone, for which injury plaintiffs seek in this action to recover compensation from the city for alleged neglect to maintain a reasonably safe highway for their use, in the manner adopted by them.

At the trial, upon the conclusion of the evidence, the court ordered a verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was denied, and now by appeal from that order bring the whole record into this court for review.

On the trial it was stipulated by the parties

"That the load in question was a larger and heavier load than the usual and ordinary loads that were hauled across the bridge,"

And it is very earnestly by defendant's counsel on this appeal that this concession of itself precluded a submission of the question to the jury upon the duty of the city to maintain a reasonably safe bridge. To...