Brantman v. City of Canby
| Citation | 138 N.W. 671,119 Minn. 396 |
| Decision Date | 22 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,921 - (97) |
| Parties | PETER BRANTMAN v. CITY OF CANBY |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action in the district court for Yellow Medicine county to recover $2,500 for personal injuries. The answer alleged that the injury was caused solely by plaintiff's own negligence. The case was tried before Powers, J., who granted defendant's motion to direct a verdict in its favor. From an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Question for jury.
Plaintiff suffered injuries from a gas explosion in his cellar. The evidence presented a question of fact for the jury as to whether or not such gas had escaped from a leak in the pipe supplying a street lamp.
Liability of municipal corporation for its negligence.
Where a city undertakes to serve both public and private convenience by maintaining a municipal lighting plant to light its street, and also furnish gas to private consumers, it is not exercising a governmental function so as to escape responsibility for negligence in the management of such plant whereby an injury has been caused to the person or property of an individual.
Johnson & Lende, for appellant.
Tom Davis, Ernest A. Michel, D. L. Kennedy and John I. Davis, for respondent.
The city of Canby, Minnesota, maintains a municipal gas plant to light its streets, and also to sell gas to private consumers. Plaintiff was occupying a building fronting on the main street in the city; in front of the building and across the sidewalk was a street lamp; the gas from this lamp was supplied by a pipe leading from the gas main in the street and was laid some two feet below the surface, entering into the lamp-post at a somewhat greater depth through a "goose neck" or bent pipe of lead designed to prevent breaks when frost would heave the ground. Nearly parallel with the pipe leading to the street lamp, and some twelve or eighteen inches from it, was a consumer's service pipe extending under the sidewalk and leading to within three feet of the cellar stone wall of the building occupied by plaintiff, then up to the surface and through the floor which extended about four feet over the cellar wall, thus entering the restaurant conducted by plaintiff. Plaintiff was injured by a gas explosion when, having occasion to go to the cellar, he struck a match therein. He claims that the defendant negligently permitted a leak to occur in the pipe which supplied the street lamp, where such pipe was attached to the goose neck, that the gas from such leak followed along the service pipe, the ground there being loose and porous, and permeated the ground and wall into the cellar. When the testimony was all in, the court directed a verdict for defendant, but afterwards granted a new trial. Defendant now appeals.
The appellant claims that there was proof of a leak in that part of the service pipe over which defendant had no control, therefore a verdict in plaintiff's favor could rest on no better foundation than a mere guess as to whether the gas in the cellar came from the leak near the goose neck or came from that part of the service pipe under plaintiff's exclusive control. From an examination of the testimony we are of opinion that, had the jury found that the gas escaped from that part of the equipment over which defendant exercised sole dominion, it could not have been said that the finding was without support.
The main contention of appellant is: Assuming that the gas came from the leak at the connection with the street lamp, and that the leak was due to defendant's negligence, the city is nevertheless not liable to the individual injured in respect to the operation of its lighting system,...
To continue reading
Request your trial