Genereau v. City of Duluth
| Decision Date | 05 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | 19,510 - (136) |
| Parties | PAULINE GENEREAU v. CITY OF DULUTH |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $6,280 for personal injuries caused by a fall upon an icy sidewalk and $75 for expenses incurred. The case was tried before Dancer, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, and a jury which returned a verdict for $3,575. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial defendant city appealed. Affirmed.
Municipal corporation -- construction of sidewalk -- ice.
1. The complaint charged that the defendant city negligently suffered ice to accumulate and remain in dangerous ridges at a place on its sidewalk where was an abrupt slant, and, also, negligently constructed the walk with such slant, by reason of which negligence plaintiff fell and was injured. The evidence justified the court in submitting to the jury both claims of negligence as grounds of recovery.
Damages not excessive.
2. The contributory negligence of plaintiff was for the jury. The damages awarded for the severe and apparently permanent injury cannot be held excessive.
Henry F. Greene and John E. Samuelson, for appellant.
H. W. Lanners and John Jenswold, for respondent.
On the evening of February 24, 1914, plaintiff, while walking upon one of defendant's streets, fell and broke her hip. In this action to recover damages, she alleged that defendant was negligent in the construction of the walk at the place where she fell, and that it negligently had permitted ice to there accumulate and remain in such form as to make it dangerous to pedestrians. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. This appeal is from the order denying defendant's motion in the alternative for judgment or a new trial.
The assignments of error as presented by the brief and the oral argument group themselves around the proposition that the evidence did not justify the court in submitting either of the two theories of the alleged negligence to the jury. Ramsey street between Fiftieth and Fifty-first avenues in West Duluth is upon level ground, and there is no slope in the street as laid out. It is one of the important streets in that part of the city, it is paved, and a double-track street car line is operated upon it. A sidewalk has been constructed between the avenues mentioned upon the south side of Ramsey street. The easterly part of this sidewalk was laid some little time before the westerly part was built. When the last part was built it was placed on a lower level, so that where the two portions met there was a difference of three inches. The city authorities directed the one who laid the last built part of the walk to raise it to the level of the old portion by an incline or slant, so that in the last twelve inches of the new walk there was a rise of three inches. Plaintiff on the evening in question was walking on this sidewalk, and, when she came to the slant mentioned, she slipped and fell breaking her hip near the socket. She cannot yet walk without crutches and the testimony indicates that the present condition is likely to be unchanged. She is fifty-four years old. The evidence tended to show that on this evening it was so dark or dimly lighted along this sidewalk that the slant therein and its condition with respect to accumulated ice could not be seen; that a path led down to the sidewalk near the slant, and, when snow accumulated and thawed, water flowed in from this path and also from the walk over the slant therein, forming, when it again froze, such uneven ridges and depressions that walking thereon...
To continue reading
Request your trial