Maloy v. City of St. Paul

Citation54 Minn. 398,56 N.W. 94
PartiesMALOY v. CITY OF ST. PAUL.
Decision Date17 August 1893
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

54 Minn. 398
56 N.W. 94

MALOY
v.
CITY OF ST. PAUL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 17, 1893.


[56 N.W. 94]


(Syllabus by the Court.)

While it is certain that previous knowledge of the existence of a defect in a street or sidewalk has an important and oftentimes a decisive bearing upon the question of contributory negligence, mere inattention on the part of a person injured by reason of such defect will not conclude him upon that question. It is not necessary that the thoughts of a traveler should at all times be fixed upon a defect in a public thoroughfare, of which he may have had notice.


Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Cornish, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by Winnie Maloy against the city of St. Paul. Plaintiff had judgment, and, from an order granting a new trial, she appeals. Reversed.

Williams, Goodenow & Stanton, and D. Ed. Dwyer, for appellant.

L. T. Chamberlain and H. W. Phillips, for respondent.


COLLINS, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover for personal injuries caused by a defective sidewalk, and obtained a verdict, which was set aside, and a new trial ordered, on motion of defendant city. The facts were not in dispute. The defect was in the walk in front of the lot on which plaintiff resided with her husband, and close by their dwelling. The planks in the walk at this particular point had been laid lengthwise, and one had been broken down, so that there was a hole about 18 inches long and about 6 inches in width, at the widest place. The walk had been laid 6 inches above the surface of the ground. It had been in this defective condition for more than three months, and plaintiff had known of this all of the time. She had passed by this break or hole daily for more than two months prior to the evening of this accident, carefully avoiding the dangerous place. When the accident occurred, there was a light snow upon the walk, partly filling the hole, and the snow was still falling. About dark, plaintiff, who was 50 years of age, having occasion to go to a neighbor's, went out on the walk, and, stepping into the hole, was thrown down, thus receiving the injuries complained of. She testified that the falling snow was blown into her eyes so that her vision was obstructed, and also that she did not think of the defect as she walked along. It did not appear from the testimony that there was anything to distract her attention, and, because there was nothing justifying or excusing inattention to the well-known condition of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT