Blyhl v. Village of Waterville
| Citation | 58 N.W. 817,57 Minn. 115 |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8600 |
| Parties | Alexander Blyhl v. Village of Waterville |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Submitted on briefs April 4, 1894.
Appeal by defendant, the Village of Waterville, from a judgment of the District Court of Le Sueur County, Francis Cadwell, J entered against it September 12, 1893, for $ 150 damages and $ 150.35 costs and disbursements.
The plaintiff, Alexander Blyhl, was a blacksmith forty years of age and resided in Waterville. On October 17, 1892, he went down town in the evening and on his return at about nine o'clock he went west along the sidewalk on the south side of Paquan Street. A new sidewalk had been built part of the way eight inches higher than the old one. The night was dark and rainy and when plaintiff reached the new walk he failed to see the step and walked against it and fell forward and had two ribs broken. He brought this action to recover damages, claiming his injury was due to the negligence of the village in leaving such a step in the sidewalk when the surface of the ground made no necessity for it. He had a verdict for $ 150. Judgment was entered thereon and the village appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
M. R Everett and H. S. Gipson, for appellant.
The plaintiff seeks to review in the courts the official action of the authorities of the village in adopting, after due consideration of the topography of the locality, a sidewalk having a step of eight inches in preference to one having a graduated incline.
Negligence cannot be predicated upon the plan on which the walk was built for that is in the discretion of the village authorities. In determining whether there should be a step at the point of union of the two sections of the walk, or a graduated incline, the authorities acted in a quasi judicial character, and their action in that regard was judicial in its nature and is not subject to review in the courts nor can it be made the ground of a civil action for damages. Detroit v. Beckman, 34 Mich. 125; Toolan v Lansing, 38 Mich. 315; Davis v. Mayor of Jackson, 61 Mich. 530; Urquhart v. Ogdensburgh, 91 N.Y. 67; McCutcheon v. Homer, 43 Mich. 483; Carr v. Northern Liberties, 35 Pa. St. 324; Shippy v. Village of Au Sable, 65 Mich. 494; Cram v. City of Chicago, 138 Ill. 506; Green v. Swift, 47 Cal. 536; Johnston v. District of Columbia, 118 U.S. 19; Fellows v. City of New Haven, 44 Conn. 240; Child v. City of Boston, 4 Allen, 41; Hines v. City of Lockport, 50 N.Y. 236; Watson v. Cambridge, 157 Mass. 561; Cook v. City of Milwaukee, 27 Wis. 191; Schroth v. City of Prescott, 63 Wis. 652; Lynch v. Mayor, 76 N.Y. 60.
No fault is found with the construction of the walk or step but plaintiff attacks the plan the officers decided to adopt, and puts the ground of liability upon a failure to adopt another plan, "a graduated incline walk." We submit the action cannot be maintained for the reason, among others, that the action of the village authorities was quasi judicial and not subject to review in the courts. The power to determine upon a plan and method of improving streets and highways is a discretionary one, and a mere error of judgment in respect to the plan will not subject the town to an action for damages.
John Moonan and F. B. Andrews, for respondent.
As far back as City of St. Paul v. Kuby, 8 Minn. 154, this court said, there is no rule of law which determines or can determine what shall constitute a safe and suitable sidewalk in any given case. It is manifestly impossible to establish a uniform rule upon the subject since the sufficiency of a sidewalk in any particular case must depend upon the facts and circumstances existing and connected with such case. That doctrine has been the accepted law of this state ever since. Tabor v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn. 188; Dillon, Munic. Corp. (3rd Ed.) § 66; Snider v. City of St. Paul, 51 Minn. 466; Readdy v. Shamokin, 137 Pa. St. 98.
Whether the walk was in a reasonably safe condition for travel was for the jury. Nichols v. City of St. Paul, 44 Minn. 494; City of St. Paul v. Kuby, 8 Minn. 154; Graham v. City of Albert Lea, 48 Minn. 201; Kellogg v. Village of Janesville, 34 Minn. 132; Young v. Village of Waterville, 39 Minn. 196.
The defendant, a municipal corporation, required an owner of a lot abutting on one of its streets to construct a plank walk along the street by the side of his lot, and he constructed it on a grade given him by, and under the direction and with the approval of, defendant's street commissioner. As constructed, the walk made, at the junction of this new walk with the walk along the remainder of the block, a drop or step seven or eight inches in height. It is apparent there was no necessity or reason for having the drop instead of gradually sloping the grade of the new walk until it came to the grade of the remainder. It is also apparent that so sloping it would have made a safe walk, and that the drop made it dangerous to one passing along it in the dark. After the walk had been in that condition for about a month, plaintiff, passing along it in the dark, hit his foot against the face of the drop, and fell, and was injured, and brings this action to recover for the injury. From a judgment after verdict in his favor the defendant appeals.
Unless the defendant is exempt from liability on the ground claimed by it as hereinafter stated, the existence of the drop in the sidewalk to the knowledge of defendant, through its street commissioner, was sufficient to make defendant's negligence a question for the jury. Tabor v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn. 188, (30 N.W. 765.)
The defendant claims it cannot be held, because the defect in the walk was in the plan on which it was constructed; that the adoption by a municipal corporation of a plan for a public improvement is a legislative or discretionary function, and that the corporation is not liable for the consequences of any error in the discharge of such functions.
That a municipal corporation is not liable for consequential injuries arising from the bona fide exercise of, or omission to exercise, those powers which are conferred on its council or legislative body, and the exercise of which as to the time, extent, and manner is left to the discretion or judgment of such body, has been fully recognized by this court. Lee v. City of Minneapolis, 22 Minn. 13; Alden v. Same, 24 Minn. 254.
Most municipal public improvements come within such powers. Thus, unless controlled by charter provisions, when street grades shall be established, and on what planes or levels; when grades shall be changed, and to what planes; when streets shall be paved, and with what kind of pavement; when sidewalks and cross-walks shall be laid, and of what material; what sewers, gutters, and catch basins shall be made, and when and how, -- are usually left to the judgment or discretion of the legislative body of the corporation. And while, of course, it is expected the best results to the people of the corporation will follow the efforts of that body, it is not enjoined as a duty to produce any particular result, so that failure to bring it about will make the corporation liable for consequential injuries.
The matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial