Dosdall v. County of Olmsted

• Decision Date: 19 December 1882
• Citation: 30 Minn. 96
• Parties: MICHAEL DOSDALL <I>vs.</I> COUNTY OF OLMSTED.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

30 Minn. 96

MICHAEL DOSDALL vs. COUNTY OF OLMSTED.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 19, 1882.

Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Olmsted county, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the failure of defendant to keep in repair a walk appurtenant to the county court-house. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by Start, J., and the plaintiff appealed.

Henry C. Butler, for appellant.

F. B. Kellogg, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.^*

The sole question to be determined in this case is the liability of the county of Olmsted for an injury alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff from falling through a broken sidewalk upon the court-house premises, belonging to the county, which had become unsafe and dangerous through the negligence of the county commissioners, whose duty it was to keep the same in repair.

For the purposes of civil administration, the state has created the subordinate political divisions of counties and towns. Their officers are public officers, selected or appointed under the general laws, and perform their duties, which are public, under the authority of the state. They are bodies politic, with limited powers defined by law, and are hence frequently called quasi corporations. Dillon on Mun. Corp. (2d Ed.) § 10a. They are created wholly for a public purpose. The liability in this case is predicated upon the fact that the defendants, the board of county commissioners, are the agents of the county, and that the plaintiff has suffered personal injury from their official neglect. They are the agents of the county in this sense, that the powers of the county can only be exercised through them, because the public can only act through officers. The functions of these officers are public. They are only such as the law enjoins. It is their duty to keep the court-house in repair, because the law of the state commands it. It is a duty which they owe to the public, and they are accountable to the public alone for their negligence. It is not necessary here to refer to the distinction existing between mere neglect of official duty, and affirmative acts of individual officers resulting in special injuries, or between officers whose duties are wholly public, and those who owe a special duty to those whom they serve for a compensation, as in the case of sheriffs, county clerks, etc.

Where, however, a corporation receives a charter from the state, the enlarged powers granted, and the...