Conlon v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 24 November 1897
• Docket Number: 10,714--(113)
• Parties: JENNIE CONLON v. CITY OF ST. PAUL
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

72 N.W. 1073

70 Minn. 216

JENNIE CONLON v. CITY OF ST. PAUL

Nos. 10,714--(113)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 24, 1897

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Otis, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a verdict of $ 400 for plaintiff. Reversed.

The order appealed from is reversed, and a new trial granted.

James E. Markham and Carl Taylor, for appellant.

McDonald & Kane, for respondent.

OPINION

CANTY J.

Plaintiff a foot passenger, was passing east along the sidewalk on the north side of Fourth street, between Jackson street and Robert street, St. Paul. Her foot slipped on the sloping side of an alley crossing, opposite the end of the alley which extends between the Pioneer Press Building and the Endicott Building, and she fell and broke her leg. This action was brought against the city to recover damages for the injury on the ground that the city was negligent in maintaining the alley crossing (which is a continuation of the sidewalk) in a dangerous condition. On the trial plaintiff had a verdict, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. The only point raised is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence.

The street was not out of repair. The alleged dangerous condition is caused solely by the manner in which the crossing was constructed. It is claimed that the city was negligent in constructing it with too steep a slope. There is a gradual descent in the street in the direction in which plaintiff was going, but the amount of that descent does not appear. The sidewalk is constructed of stone and the crossing is paved with rectangular wooden blocks. Commencing at the end of the stone sidewalk the alley crossing sloped down in the direction in which plaintiff was traveling. This slope is 9 inches in 3 1/2 feet, or nearly 3 inches to the foot. This steep slope is near the line of the curb. There is less slope further in near the line of the buildings. The height of the curb or distance from the level of the gutter to the top of the stone sidewalk appears from the evidence to be about eight or nine inches.

At the time in question it was raining, and the sloping part of this crossing was slippery. Plaintiff while walking along was holding an umbrella over her with one hand and holding up the skirt of her dress out of the wet with the other hand, and was in this position when she fell.

We are of the opinion that plaintiff has not proved a cause of action against the city. In planning for the construction of this crossing, there were obstacles to be overcome. It is necessary that the sidewalk be so constructed that the surface of the same shall be higher than the gutter. The wheels of the wagons to be drawn from the street...