Grant v. City of Brainerd
| Decision Date | 02 May 1902 |
| Parties | GRANT v. CITY OF BRAINERD. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Crow Wing county; L. L. Baxter, Judge.
Action by Candice E. Grant against the city of Brainerd. Verdict for defendant. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
1. It is the duty of a municipality having control of its public thoroughfares to construct and maintain suitable approaches to its bridges therein intended for public travel, and to provide suitable barriers or guards thereon to prevent persons lawfully using such places from injury.
2. Evidence considered, and held, that it was a question for the jury whether the public authorities of a city had failed to perform their full duty in the maintenance of barriers on the sides of an embankment used as a public highway leading to a bridge in a populous and well-settled portion thereof; also, whether such neglect was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. W. A. Fleming, for appellant.
W. H. Crowell, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries sustained by appellant while driving a horse and buggy over one of the public highways of the city of Brainerd. At the close of the evidence a verdict was directed for defendant. This appeal is from a motion denying a new trial.
Florence street is one of the principal public highways of Brainerd, connecting the eastern and western divisions of that city by means of a bridge over the Mississippi river. At the time in question the city was quite thickly settled in this locality, and the highway to and over the bridge was generally used by pedestrians and travelers with teams having occasion to cross the same. The west end of the bridge rests upon an abutment rising above the river. The street at this end is connected with the bridge by means of an embankment of earth so constructed that there is a gradual incline from the level of the highway, by means of which travelers could gradually ascent upon a traveled track over such embankment until reaching the bridge. The way over this embankment is 24 feet in width. For some distance before this incline reaches the bridge there is a steep declivity on either side of 12 feet in height above the street. For several years before the accident no guards or barriers had been maintained by the public authorities on the sides of the embankment, who had during that time adopted and made use of it as a thoroughfare for public travel. On the afternoon of July 4, 1900, the plaintiff, with her daughter, was driving a horse and carriage from West Brainerd upon Florence street intending to cross the river. The evidence tends to show that the horse was reasonably gentle, and that plaintiff had control of the same until the time of the accident. As she was going upon the bridge, she was met by a party rapidly coming towards her on a bicycle, and her horse became frightened and backed. Her daughter succeeded in jumping from the buggy, but the horse continued to back towards the south side of the embankment; the plaintiff was unable to control its movements or extricate herself from her difficulty before the horse and carriage were precipitated over the same, throwing her upon the ground, and inflicting serious injuries, for which she seeks recovery in this suit.
The facts above stated are amply sustained by the evidence, and it is therefore only necessary to determine whether, under the circumstances thus detailed, the order of the trial court directing a verdict for defendant was authorized.
The duty of a municipality to maintain its thoroughfares, including bridges and their approaches, in a reasonably safe condition for...
To continue reading
Request your trial