Frasch v. City of New Ulm
| Decision Date | 11 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | 19,262 - (164) |
| Citation | 153 N.W. 121,130 Minn. 41 |
| Parties | GERTRUDE FRASCH v. CITY OF NEW ULM |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Brown county to recover $6,000. From an order, Olsen, J., sustaining defendant's demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Municipal corporation -- statutory notice of claim.
1. Service of the written notice prescribed by section 1786 G.S. 1913, is a condition precedent to the maintenance of a suit to recover damages from a city on account of an illness contracted from the use of contaminated water supplied from the waterworks owned and operated by the city.
Statute valid.
2. The statute is not an arbitrary discrimination in favor of municipalities owning and maintaining public utilities as against private parties carrying on similar enterprises, and is not violative of any constitutional provision.
Davis & Michel, for appellant.
Pfaender & Flor and S. B. Wilson, for respondent.
The city of New Ulm owns and maintains a system of waterworks, from which its inhabitants are supplied with water for a fixed price. The city is sued for negligently furnishing plaintiff contaminated water, causing her severe illness and large expense. This appeal is from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
No question is made of the sufficiency of the complaint, except for the absence of an allegation that written notice of claim was served upon the city, within 30 days of the loss or injury, in accordance with the provision of section 1786, G.S. 1913. Plaintiff contends that the section does not apply to a case of the kind here involved, and, further, if the law be construed applicable here, it runs counter to the Constitution.
Previous to the enactment of chapter 391, p. 552, Laws 1913 (G.S. 1913, §§ 1786 -- 1789), this court had held a notice not required in case of suit by a personal representative for death by wrongful act of a city, nor in case of damages claimed on account of negligence in the discharge of the duties of a city as master. Orth v. Village of Belgrade, 87 Minn. 237, 91 N.W. 843; Kelly v. City of Faribault, 95 Minn. 293, 104 N.W. 231; Pesek v. City of New Prague, 97 Minn. 171, 106 N.W. 305; Gaughan v. City of St. Paul, 119 Minn. 63, 137 N.W. 199; Quackenbush v. City of Slayton, 120 Minn. 373, 139 N.W. 716. The act of 1913, by specifically covering cases previously excluded by our decisions, indicates an intent to extend the protection afforded municipalities in the requirement of written notice of claim before suit. This, together with the language employed in the title and body of the act, leaves no room to doubt the legislative purpose was that no person should be permitted to sue a municipality for damages suffered through the negligence of any of its officers, agents, servants or employees, unless he has served a written notice of claim within the time specified in the act. Diamond Iron Works v. City of Minneapolis, 129 Minn. 267, 152 N.W. 647.
But, it is said, the provision with respect to written notice of claim should be confined to actions involving or pertaining to the public or governmental functions of a city, and not to causes arising out of the conduct of some private endeavor which it may choose to enter upon, such as the maintenance of waterworks or lighting systems. We have held municipal corporations to the same accountability for negligence in the conduct of enterprises other than strictly governmental that we exact from private corporations engaged in similar business. Wiltse v. City of Red Wing, 99 Minn. 225, 109 N.W. 114; Keever v. City of Mankato, 113 Minn. 55, 129 N.W. 158, 775, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 339, 343, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 216; Brantman v. City of Canby, 119 Minn. 396, 138 N.W. 671, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 862. And it may be conceded that, in respect to every injury resulting from a negligent operation of its system of waterworks, defendant is answerable in damages to the same extent as would be a private owner thereof. But, even so, the legislature is not, because of similarity of liability, precluded from making distinctions between municipalities and private corporations in respect to conditions precedent to suit. When those conditions are complied with, the liability and redress are the same. This is a period when municipalities are not confined strictly to the functions of governmental agencies, but are permitted to embark in a variety of enterprises deemed beneficial and convenient to its inhabitants, upon the ground that cheaper and more efficient service can be rendered by the municipality than by persons or private corporations. Under this head come the so-called public utilities. This very need of entrusting a multitude of private, or quasi private matters, to municipalities, in addition to their purely public duties, is sufficient reason for the requirement of timely notice of a claim, before the one who has suffered from...
To continue reading
Request your trial