Ray v. City of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 03 October 1890 |
| Citation | 46 N.W. 675,44 Minn. 340 |
| Parties | Samuel C. Ray v. City of St. Paul |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kerr, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $ 2,000 for plaintiff.
Order reversed.
O. E Holman, for appellant.
I. V D. Heard, for respondent.
This is an action brought against the city for personal injuries caused by the condition of one of its streets or thoroughfares leading to the river, arising from an accumulation of snow and refuse collected at the foot of the street on the bank of the river. The substance of the complaint appears, and its sufficiency is sustained, in the decision on the former appeal. 40 Minn. 458, (42 N.W. 297.) In order to sustain an action against the city for an injury received "by means of any defect in the condition of any street or thoroughfare," it is required by the charter that notice of the circumstances of the injury shall be given in writing to the mayor or city clerk within 30 days after occurrence thereof. A similar provision was construed and held valid in Nichols v. City of Minneapolis, 30 Minn. 545, (16 N.W. 410.) It is however, also provided that notice need not be given where the person injured shall, in consequence of the injury "be bereft of reason." The plaintiff's injury was a broken leg. It was a compound fracture, occasioning much suffering, to relieve which, and to induce repose opiates were administered, as was needed, for more than 30 days after the accident. The plaintiff's contention is that the evidence shows, or tends to show, that he was, under the circumstances, mentally incapacitated from attending to business during the time, and hence exempt from the statutory requirement as to notice; but we think the evidence in the case fails to establish this. His limb was placed in a cast or setting of plaster of Paris, according to the usual practice in such cases. The injury did not cause delirium or much fever. He was harassed and distressed by the pain in the injured limb, but the injury had no other effect upon his mind. The physician who attended him, and visited him two or three times a day, and who was a witness in his behalf, prescribed morphine to ease his pain; but there is no evidence that he was not awake, more or less, every day, or that he was not conscious when he was awake. This witness also testified that his mind was sufficiently clear to suggest anything that might affect his business; that, when he visited him, he engaged in conversation, and understood and answered his questions intelligently. It is true another of the plaintiff's witnesses, who was in the habit of calling to see him frequently, "every day, or every other day," testified that the morphine was given the patient about every time she was there, and also, against...
To continue reading
Request your trial