Barnard v. City of Fergus Falls
| Decision Date | 27 October 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,351 - (133) |
| Citation | 132 N.W. 998,115 Minn. 506 |
| Parties | EDWARD T. BARNARD v. CITY OF FERGUS FALLS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Otter Tail county to recover $1,000, damage to plaintiff's stock of goods stored in a basement which was flooded in consequence of the breaking of defendant's dam. The case was tried before Nye, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
New trial.
Evidence considered, and held, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial and did not err in its rulings on the admission of evidence.
J. W Mason, for appellant.
N. F. Field, for respondent.
Defendant is a municipal corporation of this state and empowered to furnish light for municipal purposes and to supply light to its inhabitants for profit. In the years 1907 and 1908 defendant built upon premises owned by it a concrete dam across the Red River of the North, with a power house thereon, for the purposes aforesaid. This dam raised the water of the river to a height of about twenty-five feet. The backwater extended for a distance of about one mile above the dam. The plant was finished, accepted by the defendant, and put in operation in November, 1908. From this time until September 24, 1909, it was run continuously night and day. At about four o'clock in the morning of September 24 the dam suddenly and without warning gave way and collapsed, and the water dammed up in the river above it escaped and ran down the river, causing damages to the property of plaintiff.
This action was brought to recover such damages. The complaint, in addition to the facts pleaded in the complaint in City Water Power Co. v. City of Fergus Falls, 113 Minn. 33, 128 N.W. 817, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 59, alleged that the dam was improperly and negligently constructed by defendant, and that it collapsed and gave way in consequence of such negligent and improper construction. The answer denied these allegations, and alleged that the dam was built upon a proper model, of good material, and that the work was well, carefully, and substantially done.
At the trial defendant assumed the burden of proving that the collapse of the dam was not caused by improper or negligent construction, and introduced evidence tending to substantiate the allegations of its answer. Plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the collapse of the dam was due either to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial