Griswold v. Camp
| Decision Date | 23 April 1912 |
| Citation | 149 Wis. 399,135 N.W. 754 |
| Parties | GRISWOLD v. CAMP. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; O. T. Williams, Judge.
Action by Frances N. Griswold against Thomas E. Camp. Judgment dismissing the case, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Action for a personal injury. January 25, 1910, plaintiff, while walking on a sidewalk in front of premises occupied by defendant in the city of Milwaukee, stepped, by reason of the walk being covered with ice and there being no sand, ashes, or other material thereon, slipped and was injured. There then existed in the city of Milwaukee a duly adopted ordinance requiring every person circumstanced as defendant was to keep the walk in front of his premises sprinkled with ashes, sawdust, or sand, under penalty of not less than one dollar nor more than five dollars and five dollars per day for the time the failure to obey the ordinance should continue. Defendant so failed and on that account plaintiff claimed he was liable to her for her injury. The court dismissed the case upon the ground that the ordinance did not impose any such liability on defendant.
Rossiter Lines (Lawrence A. Olwell, of counsel), for appellant.
F. A. Geiger, for respondent.
MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts as above).
[1][2] The duty of a municipality as regards keeping its sidewalks reasonably safe for public travel, does not, generally speaking, include obviating danger to travelers using such walks from mere slipperyness produced by natural causes. Cook v. Milwaukee, 24 Wis. 270, 1 Am. Rep. 183;Salzer v. City of Milwaukee, 97 Wis. 471, 73 N. W. 20. So the purpose of the ordinance in question was not to require the owners or occupants of lots to aid the city in the performance of its duty. There was no common-law duty of a person circumstanced as respondent was to protect travelers from danger of being injured by such slippery condition. That is too clear for argument. Where then is there any legitimate basis for the claim of liability?
[3] Appellant seems to think the case turns on the validity of the ordinance and so seeks to demonstrate that it is reasonable, and, therefore, valid. It may well be conceded that the ordinance is valid; but it does not, in terms, attempt to create such a liability as is sought to be enforced, even if such liability could be so created. Does a mere police regulation of the nature under consideration,--one requiring the occupant of a lot to do something the city is not liable to do in order to render its sidewalks reasonably safe, and imposing on him a penalty in favor of the city for failure to comply therewith,--manifest, clearly, a purpose to render a person guilty of such failure also liable on the ground of negligence, as claimed in this case? If any such liability be discoverable, it must be found in the intent and spirit rather than in literal sense.
That such an ordinance as the one in question, or a charter provision of similar import, does not contemplate any consequence to the wrongdoer but those specifically mentioned therein, is ruled by Sommers v. City of Marshfield, 90 Wis. 59, 62 N. W. 937,Selleck v. Tallman, 93 Wis. 246, 67 N. W. 36,Hay v. City of Baraboo, 127 Wis. 1, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Milwaukee Terminal Ry. Co.
...traveler, and the action was held not maintainable. Page 248 (67 N. W. 36). The question was again fully considered in Griswold v. Camp, 149 Wis. 399, 135 N. W. 754, an action against a lot owner for failure to comply with the ordinance of Milwaukee requiring him to keep icy sidewalks sprin......
-
Flintrop v. Lefco
...nonliability of municipality to frequenters of sidewalks for injuries due to natural accumulation of snow or ice, see: Griswold v. Camp (1912), 149 Wis. 399, 135 N.W. 754. For nonliability of owner of adjoining property to users of sidewalk based on icy condition of the walk, see: Johnson v......
-
Johnson v. Prange-Geussenhainer Co.
...of the defendants and that had the ice been merely a natural formation no legal liability would have accrued. Griswold v. Camp, 1912, 149 Wis. 399, at page 401, 135 N.W. 754;Adlington v. Viroqua, 1914, 155 Wis. 472, at pages 475-478, 144 N.W. 1130; Note (1914) 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 309. Appellant......
-
Bosin v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R. Co.
...statutes give rise to civil liability. Instead the court looks to the presumed legislative intent in each instance. Griswold v. Camp, 1912, 149 Wis. 399, 135 N.W. 754. In respect to a violation of a statute governing employment of a minor, it was held that "where a statute imposes a duty up......