Blake v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 31 March 1867
• Parties: JOHN B. BLAKE, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

40 Mo. 569

JOHN B. BLAKE, Respondent,

v.THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1867.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

A. W. Alexander, for appellant.

Sharp & Broadhead, and J. B. Goff, for respondent.

The city could not surrender her jurisdiction over her streets so as to relieve herself of liability caused by their bad condition--Wallace v. Mayor of N. Y., 2 Hilton, 440; Mayor of New York v. Bailey, 2 Denio, 433-45; Mayor of N. Y. v. Freuze, 3 Hill, 612, and references; Wendell v. Mayor of N. Y., 39 Barb. 329; Nelson v. Vt. C. R. R. Co., 26 Vt. 717.

The city was bound to keep her streets, and all the appurtenances thereto, in order and in safe condition for passengers, and failing to do so, was liable for damages resulting from such failure; she has supreme power and exclusive jurisdiction over such streets, and the corresponding duty of exercising reasonable care over them is a necessary concomitent of such jurisdiction--Wallace v. Mayor of N. York, 2 Hilton, 440; Browning v. City of Springfield, 17 Ills. 143; Hutten v. Mayor of N. York, 5 Seld. 163; Mayor & Ald. of Memphis v. Sasser, 9 Humph. 757; Mavor of N. Y. v. Freuze, 3 Hill, 612; Mayor of N. Y. v. Bailey, 2 Denio, 433; Boston v. City of Syracuse, 37 Barb. 292; Wendell v. Mayor of N. Y., 39 Barb. 329; Weightman v. City of Washington, 1 Black (U. S.) 39; Nebraska City v. Campbell, 2 Id. 590; Lloyd v. Mayor of N. Y., 1 Seld. 369; Storrs v. City of Utica, 17 N. Y. 104.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit brought in the court below by Blake against the City of St. Louis, to recover damages in consequence of an injury which he received by falling into an inlet or apperture on Fourth street. The apperture was left in an exposed condition, and Blake, passing along in the nighttime, fell in, and was severely injured in the spine, so as to render him a cripple for life. He obtained a verdict and judgment in the Circuit Court, and the city has appealed the case.

Several exceptions were taken at the trial to the admission and exclusion of evidence, and the giving and refusing of instructions, but they seem to have been all abandoned here, except the action of the court in overruling a motion to suppress the deposition of one Lewis.

There can be no doubt of the liability of the city; the charter vests in it the power “to open, alter, abolish, widen, extend, establish, grade, pave, or otherwise improve, clean and keep in repair streets,” &c., at the public expense. It has general and exclusive jurisdiction over the streets, and for the purpose of repairing, opening and improving the same, it is authorized to levy a tax within the corporate limits. Municipal corporations are bound to keep the streets and highways in a proper state of repair, free from obstructions, so that they will be reasonably safe for travel, and if they neglect to do this they will be held liable for all injuries happening by...