Gaughan v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 26 July 1912
• Docket Number: 17,577 - (186.)
• Parties: LAWRENCE GAUGHAN v. CITY OF ST. PAUL
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

137 N.W. 199

119 Minn. 63

LAWRENCE GAUGHAN v. CITY OF ST. PAUL

Nos. 17,577 - (186.)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 26, 1912

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $20,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Dickson, J who sustained defendant's objection to the introduction of any testimony on the ground the complaint did not state a cause of action and granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case. From the order denying his motion for a new trial plaintiff appealed. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

City charter -- notice of injury to servant -- violation of master's duties.

Section 690 of the charter of the city of St. Paul, which is substantially identical with R.L. 1905, § 768, requiring written notice of injuries caused by any defect in any bridge, street, etc., or by reason of any alleged negligence of any officer, agent, servant, or employee of the said city, to be given to the city council as a condition precedent to the right to sue therefor, does not require such notice as a condition precedent to the right of an employee of the said city to sue for injuries caused by the city's failure to provide such employee with a safe place in which to work, or by the city's violation of any of the absolute duties of a master to the servant.

John J. Kirby and J. C. Michael, for appellant.

O. H. O'Neill, Kenneth G. Brill, and Albin E. Bjorklund, for respondent.

OPINION

PHILIP E. BROWN, J.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. It was alleged in the complaint, in substance, that on May 20, 1911, while the plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant as a laborer upon its streets for hire, and in charge of its general foreman, he was ordered by the said foreman into an unsafe place in which to work, namely, an earth bank maintained and used by the defendant to furnish material for use in the repair and construction of its streets, and while there, and when acting within the scope of his employment and in the line of his duty, was injured solely by the negligence of the defendant, wherefore damages in a stated sum were claimed. The complaint contained no allegation of the service upon the council of the defendant city of any notice or claim of injury, as required in certain cases by section 690 of the defendant's charter and by R.L. 1905, § 768.

The defendant answered, denying all claims of its negligence, and alleged the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risks. To this answer the plaintiff interposed a reply, which was in effect a general denial.

The cause was tried on these pleadings to a jury, and the plaintiff had a verdict, which, however, was subsequently set aside, because the damages awarded were excessive. The case was thereafter brought on for a retrial on the same pleadings, whereupon the court sustained an objection, interposed at the outset by the defendant, to the introduction of testimony, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and also its motion to dismiss the action; the basis of the court's rulings being the failure of the plaintiff to serve or to plead the service of the written notice of injury above mentioned. The plaintiff excepted to these rulings. A case was subsequently settled, and a motion for a new trial was made and denied. This is an appeal from such order.

Several grounds for reversal are urged by the plaintiff, including the claim that he was not required, as condition precedent to the maintenance of his action, either to plead or to prove that within thirty days after his injury he served on the defendant's council the notice and claim required either by section 690 of the defendant's charter or section 768, R.L. 1905, which contention is the only one we deem it necessary to consider and determine on this appeal.

Chapter 248 of the Laws of 1897 was the original of section 768 of the Revised Laws of 1905, and the body of this chapter is identical with the provisions of section 690 of the charter of the City of St. Paul. In Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 84 N.W. 788, decided in January, 1901, it was held that the act, in so far as it required the statutory notice to be given in actions for injuries due to the negligence of the officers or employees of a municipality, which are in no manner connected with any of the enumerated utilities, places, or works of the municipality, was unconstitutional, because of the insufficiency of the title of the act, but that the other portions of the statute were valid. In other words, the court "held in effect that the clause therein, 'or by reason of the negligence of its officers, agents, or servants,' was not germane to the title of the act. Hence no effect was given to it prior to the Revision of 1905." The act referred to was included in this revision, however, as section 768, and hence the part theretofore held unconstitutional was cured (Mitchell v. Village of Chisholm, 116 Minn. 323, 133 N.W. 804), and since March 1, 1906, the time when the Revised Laws went into effect, the entire act has been in force.

While the phraseology of the act of 1897 and of the present statute differs somewhat, the meaning is substantially identical. In effect, then, since March 1, 1906, the provisions of the charter of St. Paul and the general laws stated have been identical. In Kelly v. City of Faribault, 95 Minn 293, 104 N.W. 231, an action for...