Brandt v. City of Duluth

• Decision Date: 25 January 1924
• Docket Number: No. 23734.,23734.
• Citation: 196 N.W. 932,158 Minn. 104
• Parties: BRANDT v. CITY OF DULUTH.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

158 Minn. 104

196 N.W. 932

BRANDT

v.CITY OF DULUTH.

No. 23734.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 25, 1924.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Bert Fesler, Judge.

Action by Reka Brandt against City of Duluth. From an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Action for personal injuries resulting from a fall on a defective sidewalk. The evidence justified the jury in finding that the defect had existed a sufficient length of time to charge the city with notice.

The verdict was not excessive within the rule permitting this court to interfere on that ground. John B. Richards and Chas. C. Teare, both of Duluth, for appellant.

McHugh & O'Donnell, of Duluth, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Action for personal injuries in which plaintiff had a verdict for $3,216.50 and defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.

[1] The accident happened on Grand avenue in the city of Duluth. The top of a plank sidewalk abutting against a concrete curb at an intersecting street was about two inches below the top of the curb. Plaintiff walking along this sidewalk in the evening caught her foot on the projecting curb and fell upon the brick pavement. It is urged that the evidence does not justify a finding that the defect had existed for such a length of time that the city was chargeable with notice of it. No witness knew how long the walk had been in that condition. The planks lay flat on the ground with vegetation growing up at the ends. One witness testified that the walk looked as if it had been in the same position for years. The foreman in charge of the streets in that locality, a witness for the city, would not undertake to say how long the same condition had existed. Asked, ‘Wouldn't you say it had existed for at least a year?’ he answered, ‘I really don't know.’ We think the jury were justified in concluding that it had existed long enough to charge the city with notice.

[2] The other point urged is that the verdict is excessive. Plaintiff was 78 years of age, but according to the testimony, was unusually healthy and vigorous for a person of that age, until the accident. The inner condyle of the left tibia was fractured-a complete separation-and the ligaments in the knee joint were injured. The fracture has united but the condyle is somewhat out of its proper position. Plaintiff was in the hospital six weeks. After leaving...