Schigley v. City of Waseca

• Decision Date: 13 November 1908
• Docket Number: 15,754 - (17)
• Parties: ADDIE SCHIGLEY v. CITY OF WASECA
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

118 N.W. 259

106 Minn. 94

ADDIE SCHIGLEY v. CITY OF WASECA

Nos. 15,754 - (17)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 13, 1908

Action in the district court for Waseca county to recover $800 for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by a defective sidewalk in defendant city. The charter of the city of Waseca exempts the city from liability for damages in such case unless it shall have had written notice of the defect at least ten days before the injury. The complaint did not allege such notice. From an order, Buckham, J., sustaining defendant's demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Municipal Corporation -- Control by Legislature.

Municipal corporations are created by the legislature as proper and convenient agencies in the work of government. Their powers duties, and liabilities, in so far as they relate to governmental matters, are subject to legislative regulation and control.

Liability for Defective Streets.

The liability of a municipality to individuals for damages for injuries caused by the neglect of the municipal authorities to keep the streets in proper repair arises out of the fact that it has the exclusive control of the streets, and has the power to provide the means for the proper performance of the duty of keeping them in safe condition.

Liability May be Conditional.

The legislature may relieve a public corporation from such liability, or it may impose or recognize the liability upon such conditions as it thinks advisable. When conditions are thus imposed, an action cannot be maintained without showing performance of the conditions.

Prior Notice of Defect.

The legislature may legally provide that ten days' written notice to the city, prior to the accident, of the existence of a defect in a street or sidewalk, shall be a condition precedent to liability for damages caused thereby to individuals.

Home Rule Charter.

The condition upon which a municipality shall be liable for damages to individuals caused by the defective condition of a street or sidewalk is a matter which belongs properly to the government of municipalities, and may be determined and regulated in a home rule charter.

A. S. Maloney and John J. Isker, for appellant.

P. McGovern, for respondent.

OPINION

ELLIOTT, J.

This appeal from an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint in an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of a defective sidewalk presents the question of the validity of a provision in the home rule charter of the city of Waseca, adopted in May, 1904, pursuant to chapter 238, p. 349, Laws 1903, enacted under the authority of section 36 of article 4 of the state constitution.

The complaint does not allege that written notice of the defect in the sidewalk had been given the city prior to the accident. The city charter [Section 7] provides that: "Said city shall be absolutely exempt from liability to any person for damages for injuries suffered or sustained by reason of defective streets or sidewalks within said city unless actual notice in writing of such defects in said streets or sidewalks shall have been filed with the city clerk within at least ten days before the occurrence of such injury or damage. In the absence of such notice the city shall not be liable for any injury or damage on account of such defects, and in all cases such notice shall describe with particularity the place and nature of the defects of which complaint is made." The effect of this provision is to charge the city with liability only for accidents which occur after it has had ten days' actual written notice of the existence of the defect.

Municipal corporations, including chartered municipalities, are agencies in the work of government. They are created by the legislature, and to them it delegates certain clearly defined portions of the sovereign power. Except as restrained by constitutional provisions, these auxiliary agencies of government are under the absolute control of the legislature. Powers and duties may be imposed and taken away at the legislative will. The duty of caring for the streets and highways rests primarily upon the legislature of the state. It has, however, always been customary, as a matter of convenience and in the interest of good administration, to delegate to municipalities, counties, and townships the duty of overseeing and caring for the highways and streets within their limits. This arrangement is purely optional with the legislature.

The duty is a governmental one, and the rule is almost universal that public quasi corporations, such as counties and townships, are not liable to individuals for damages resulting from the careless and negligent manner in which the duty of caring for the highway is performed. Probably the same rule applied to chartered municipalities under the English law, and certainly such is the rule at the present time in the New England states.

But in the central and western states chartered municipalities are now held liable for damages resulting to individuals from defects in streets of which they had actual or constructive notice for such a time as to justify the conclusion of negligence. In a few states this liability is imposed by statute, while in many others it is held to exist independently of statute.

Various theories have been advanced to support this liability. Thus it has been often said that when a municipal corporation accepts a charter, by which it acquires special powers and privileges in return for its assumption of some of the duties which rest primarily upon the legislature, its relation to the legislature becomes in that respect contractual, and for the violation of the duty which it has contracted to perform it is liable for damages thereby resulting to individuals. This theory is not very satisfactory, and probably the liability might better be said to arise out of the fact that the municipality has the exclusive control of the streets and highways within its limits, with power to provide means for the proper performance of the duty of keeping them in safe condition.

The liability, then, is inferred or implied from the imposition upon the corporation of duties accompanied by the power and authority necessary for the proper performance of such duties. The legislature may delegate the power over streets and highways to municipalities, or it may create a special body within the municipality and vest it with full power over the streets. Manifestly, by virtue of its plenary power over the highways and over all the agencies of government which it has created, it may properly determine whether such agencies shall or shall not be liable to individuals for damages resulting from the careless and negligent manner in which such delegated duties are performed. An individual has no right of action against the state for its failure to construct and maintain the highways in proper condition, and as against the will of the state he has no greater right against an agency of the state to which it has delegated the performance of such duties. But the state may, if it chooses, authorize a right of action if the municipality neglects the proper performance of its duties; and, as we have seen, an intention to authorize such an action is inferred when a chartered municipality is given full power of control over the streets and highways within its limits. A right of action against the municipality is thus a matter of legislative favor, and may be granted absolutely or conditionally. When it has been held to exist by implication, it may be taken away by the legislature, without violating any constitutional right of the individual. Obviously, then, the right of action may be made to depend upon compliance with certain conditions.

We are familiar with provisions which require the giving of a notice of a claim for damages which shall describe the time, place and manner of the action, and compliance with this condition has always been held necessary to the maintenance of an action. It is also the settled rule that in an action against a municipality it is...