Selleck v. Tallman
| Decision Date | 01 May 1896 |
| Citation | 93 Wis. 246,67 N.W. 36 |
| Parties | SELLECK v. TALLMAN ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Rock county; John R. Bennett, Judge.
Action by Mary E. Selleck against the city of Janesville, Wis., and W. H. Tallman and E. D. Tallman, to recover for personal injuries caused by a defective sidewalk. The defendants W. H. Tallman and E. D. Tallman demurred to the complaint, and, the demurrer being overruled, appealed. Reversed.
Action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by plaintiff by reason of a defective sidewalk in the defendant city. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.Ruger & Norcross, for appellants.
Fethers, Jeffris, Fifield & Matheson, for respondent.
W. H. and E. D. Tallman were joined as defendants because they were the owners of the lot in front of which the alleged defect existed. By the charter of the defendant city, it has power to establish sidewalks, and determine their width and character and the manner and method of construction. It is made the duty of each lot owner to construct such walk in front of his property in accordance with such determination, and to keep the same in repair; and on failure so to do, after due notice as provided in the charter, the municipality is authorized to perform the work at such lot owner's expense, and, on his failure to pay such expense within the prescribed period, the city is authorized to charge the same as a tax against the property. The charter also provides that “whenever any injury shall happen by reason of any defect in any * * * sidewalk * * * from any cause for which the city would be liable, and such defect shall arise from, or be produced by, the wrong, default or negligence of any person * * * other than such city, such person * * * so guilty * * * shall be primarily liable for all damages for such injury.” The complaint contained appropriate allegations to constitute a cause of action against defendants W. H. and E. D. Tallman, if, under the charter of the city, a lot owner who violates the provisions of such charter in respect to keeping the sidewalk in front of his lot in a proper state of repair is liable to a person for an injury received by such person, while passing over such walk, by reason of its unsafe condition for the public use. Such defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them. The demurrer was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hay v. City of Baraboo
...36 N. W. 632, 71 Wis. 74, and similar cases, but not by provisions in the charter of the city of Janesville, treated in Selleck v. Tallman, 67 N. W. 36, 93 Wis. 246, and similar cases. The notice required by section 1339, Rev. St. 1898, to be given the municipality in case of injury to a pe......
-
Brown v. Milwaukee Terminal Ry. Co.
...on the part of the lot owner to the passerby for injuries resulting from mere lack of repair of the adjacent sidewalk.” In Selleck v. Tallman, 93 Wis. 246, 67 N. W. 36, where an action for injuries on a defective sidewalk was brought against the lot owners, it was again declared that the du......
-
Nord v. Butte Water Co.
... ... by holding that it applies only to cases arising from the ... active negligence of the property owner. Selleck v ... Tallman, 93 Wis. 246, 67 N.W. 36; Hay v. City of ... Baraboo, 127 Wis. 1, 105 N.W. 654, 115 Am. St. Rep. 977, ... 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 84, ... ...
-
DeVine v. City of Fond Du Lac
...714;Sommers v. City of Marshfield, 90 Wis. 60, 62 N. W. 937;Toutloff v. City of Green Bay, 91 Wis. 490, 65 N. W. 168; and Selleck v. Tallman, 93 Wis. 246, 67 N. W. 36. We need only to say that the charter provisions considered in these cases are entirely different, and much less comprehensi......