Hall v. City of Anoka

• Decision Date: 26 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 37696,37696
• Citation: 256 Minn. 134,97 N.W.2d 380
• Parties: Norman HALL and Hazel Hall, Appellants, v. CITY OF ANOKA, Respondent, B. J. Witte et al., Defendants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 380

97 N.W.2d 380

256 Minn. 134

Norman HALL and Hazel Hall, Appellants, v. CITY OF ANOKA, Respondent, B. J. Witte et al., Defendants.

No. 37696.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 26, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court.

The rule is well settled that a municipality is required to exercise reasonable care in keeping its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for pedestrians using them. Although a city is not liable generally for injuries sustained because of mere slipperiness of its sidewalks, liability may arise if the municipality allows ice and snow to accumulate on a sidewalk or crosswalk for such a length of time as to cause the formation thereon of slippery and dangerous ridges, depressions, hummocks, and irregularities.

On motion for a directed verdict the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing it. Such a motion accepts a view of the entire evidence most favorable to the adverse party and admits credibility of evidence in his favor and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and should be granted only in cases where it would be clearly the duty of the trial court to set aside a verdict as being manifestly against the entire evidence or where it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case. The right to direct a verdict also involves the duty to do so but such right is to be cautiously and sparingly exercised.

Held, under the record here, that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that a dangerous condition of ridges, depressions, hummocks and irregularities, rather than mere slipperiness, had existed for more than 10 days prior to the accident and that the issue should have been presented to the jury.

Cutter & Babcock, Anoka, for appellants.

E. L. Jorgensen, Anoka, Lipschultz, Altman, Geraghty & Mulally, James H. Geraghty, Roger R. Lenzmeier, St. Paul, for respondent.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the district court.

Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, claim damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Hazel Hall, arising out of a fall which plaintiff alleges resulted from a defectively maintained public sidewalk covered with snow and ice which contained uneven ridges, depressions, and other irregularities. The fall occurred in the city of Anoka on December 6, 1955.

The case was tried before a jury, and after completion of plaintiffs' case, the court granted the motion of defendant city for a directed verdict in its favor. This appeal was taken from the order denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.

Generally with respect to the liability of a municipality for defectively maintained sidewalks the rule is stated in Larson v. City of Mankato, 239 Minn. 484, 485, 59 N.W.2d 312, 313, as follows:

'* * * The rule is well established that a municipality is required to exercise reasonable care in keeping its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for pedestrians using them. 4 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. §§ 6818, 6829. Although a city is not liable generally for injuries sustained because of mere slipperiness of its sidewalks, Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530, 44 N.W. 1026, liability may arise if the municipality allows ice and snow to accumulate on a sidewalk or crosswalk for such a length of time as to cause the formation thereon of slippery and dangerous ridges, depressions, hummocks, and irregularities.'

Therefore, as a requisite to liability on the part of defendant city, it is necessary that the injury did not occur because of mere slipperiness of its sidewalk. Another essential to liability is created by a provision in the city charter which requires that in order to recover plaintiff must show that the defectively maintained sidewalk existed for a period of more than 10 days immediately prior to the date of the accident, in the absence of actual notice. Anoka City Charter, c. XVI, § 2.

The single legal issue raised by plaintiffs is whether the evidence sustained a directed verdict in favor of the defendant city.

On motion for a directed verdict the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing it. Merchants & Farmers Mutual Casualty Co. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co., 214 Minn. 544, 8 N.W.2d 827. The rule is well settled in this state that a motion for a directed verdict, which by its very nature accepts a view of the entire evidence most favorable to the adverse party and admits credibility of evidence in his favor and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, should be granted only in cases where it would be clearly the duty of the trial court to set aside a contrary verdict as being manifestly against the entire evidence or where it would be contrary to the law applicable to the case. Caron v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 252 Minn. 247, 90 N.W.2d 86; Erickson v. Strickler, 252 Minn. 351, 90 N.W.2d 232; Hanson v. Homeland Ins. Co., 232 Minn. 403, 45 N.W.2d 637; Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 Minn. 163, 69 N.W.2d 649. The right to direct a verdict also involves the duty to do so but such right is to be cautiously and sparingly exercised. Kolatz v. Kelly, supra.

With respect to whether the injury occurred because of mere slipperiness or due to slippery and dangerous ridges, depressions, hummocks, and irregularities, plaintiff Hazel Hall testified that on December 6, 1955, between 4:30 and 5 p.m., while proceeding north on the westerly sidewalk of Second Avenue South in Anoka, she started to slip and her foot hit a chunk of 'hard snow, icy snow,' causing her to fall. As a result of her fall Mrs. Hall broke her left leg and received other injuries. She claimed that she fell...