City of Keokuk v. Independent Dist. of Keokuk

• Decision Date: 20 April 1880
• Citation: 53 Iowa 352,5 N.W. 503
• Parties: THE CITY OF KEOKUK v. THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT OF KEOKUK.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

53 Iowa 352

5 N.W. 503

THE CITY OF KEOKUK

v.THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT OF KEOKUK.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 20, 1880.

Appeal from Lee district court.

Action at law. The petition alleges that defendant is the owner of a certain lot in the city of Keokuk; that a sidewalk along the street upon which the lot is situated became and continued for a long time out of repair, and in a dangerous condition; that one Charlotte Stanwood, while passing upon the sidewalk in the exercise of due care, incurred great bodily injuries by a fall caused by the dangerous condition of the walk, and that in an action against the city she recovered a large judgment, which, with costs, the plaintiff has paid. The petition alleges that it was the duty of defendant to keep the sidewalk adjacent to its lot in repair, and although notified of its dangerous condition failed to discharge this duty. The petition asks judgment for the amount paid by plaintiff, with interest and costs.

The answer denies that defendant was charged with the duty of keeping the sidewalk in repair, and alleges that such duty rested upon plaintiff; and that the injury to Mrs. Stanwood resulted from the negligence of plaintiff in failing to repair the walk. The defendant also denies that it was notified of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk. Defendant alleges that the lot in question was owned by it for school purposes; that the property was not subjected to taxation for any purpose; and that defendant was not required to keep the sidewalk in repair. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for defendant, the court finding that plaintiff has no cause of action. Plaintiff appeals.Anderson & Roberts, for appellant.

McCrary, Hagerman & McCrary, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The evidence introduced by plaintiff upon the trial in the court below sustains the allegations of its petition touching the condition of the sidewalk, and the action and judgment for injuries sustained by Mrs. Stanwood. It is also shown that under the ordinances of the city sidewalks are required, in certain cases, to be constructed. Notice is given the owner of lots abutting upon the street requiring him to cause such walks to be made within a time prescribed by the city council. If he fail or refuse to comply with the requirement, the city shall cause the sidewalk to be constructed, and shall assess and levy a special tax upon the abutting lot for the purpose of paying the expenses of the work. In case it be necessary to make repairs of said walks, like proceedings are to be had, and if they be not made by the lot owner, the work is done by the city, and the cost thereof is in a like manner assessed and levied against the lot. It is further provided that in case the lot owner neglects or refuses to make the repairs within 10 days after notice is served upon him, he shall be liable to a fine of not less than one dollar, nor more than $20. The evidence which supports the allegations of the answer need not be here set out.

2. Whether a school district is liable in an action of tort for injuries sustained, by reason of its negligent acts or omissions, in the view we take of the case, need not be determined. As we reach a satisfactory conclusion upon another point, which will dispose of the case, we confine our investigations and discussion thereto.

3. The question we propose to consider, and upon which the determination of the case turns, is this: Is defendant, without regard to its character as a school corporation, liable to plaintiff upon the facts of the case? The question, as thus stated, will require us to regard defendant as standing in this case in the same position, as to rights and liabilities, as a natural person. We will proceed to its consideration.

The city is charged by its charter with the duty and power to grade and construct streets and sidewalks. In the exercise thereof the ordinance under which it is claimed that defendant is liable in this action was passed. There can be no dispute upon these positions. The manner of exercising the power is left largely to the discretion of the city government. It may cause the work to be done and assess the cost thereof as a special tax upon the lots abutting upon the streets unimproved. It may require the lot owners to make the improvements, and in case of their default cause the work to be done and assess a special tax upon the abutting lots to pay for the improvements. The city, it is very plain, is clothed with authority to determine whether the improvements are proper and demanded by the public, and the character and extent thereof. It may order the improvements to be made, and prescribe the time and manner of their construction.

When it has exercised its authority thus far it must determine another question, namely: In what manner shall the money be raised to pay for the work, or what fund shall be used for that purpose? The city may assess special taxes upon abutting lots, in order to raise a special revenue to pay for the work. When this is done it is very plain that the improvements are made and paid for by the city, in the exercise of its municipal authority. The owners of lots abutting upon the streets improved are charged with no duty touching the work other than the payment of the special tax assessed upon their property. They have no other or greater responsibility as to the improvements than other tax payers. The case is simply this: The city, in the exercise of its lawful authority, causes the improvement to be made, and pays for it out of the funds raised by a special assessment upon the...