Snider v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 02 December 1892
• Citation: 51 Minn. 466
• Parties: JENNIE SNIDER <I>vs.</I> CITY OF ST. PAUL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

51 Minn. 466

JENNIE SNIDER vs. CITY OF ST. PAUL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Argued November 11, 1892.

Decided December 2, 1892.

Appeal by plaintiff, Jennie Snider, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Kelly, J., made May 14, 1892, overruling her demurrer to the answer of the City of St. Paul.

By her complaint the plaintiff stated that she was on November 3, 1891, at 5 P. M., descending in one of the elevator cabs from the fourth to the first floor of the Court House and City Hall building in St. Paul. When the servant opened the door for her exit, the floor of the cab was six inches lower than the first floor of the building and she stubbed her foot and fell out onto the floor. At the same time the servant negligently raised the cab the six inches and caught her foot between the floor of the building and the floor of the cab and crushed it, doing her great personal injury. She asked judgment for $2,000 damages.

The defendant, the City of St. Paul, answered that the building was erected and maintained under the provisions of Sp. Laws 1881, ch. 376; Sp. Laws 1883, ch. 102; Sp. Laws 1885, ch. 146; Sp. Laws 1887, ch. 381; Sp. Laws 1889, ch. 64, and of Sp. Laws 1889 ch. 350. That it was commenced in 1884 and completed in 1890. That the building and block twenty (20) of St. Paul Proper on which it stands have ever since been in the exclusive charge of a joint committee of seven, (7,) appointed as provided by Sp. Laws 1889, ch. 64. That this committee appoints the custodian and all the servants, including the persons operating the elevators, and that the city has no authority or control over them, and is not responsible for their negligence.

To this answer the plaintiff demurred, on the ground that it did not state facts constituting a defense. The demurrer was overruled, the court saying: "This action was based on the alleged negligence of the person operating the elevator at the time of the accident. For such negligence, if he was in fact the city's servant, the city is not liable unless made so by the statute; or unless it is rendered liable by reason of some duty imposed; or by reason of some special benefit received by it as a corporation. The laws nowhere charge upon the city such liability, nor do they impose a duty upon the city from which such liability necessarily arises. The city, as a corporation, distinct from its public character as part of the state government, derives no such special advantage or benefit from the use of the building as will legally charge it with liability. It does not receive rentals of any kind from the builing. The care of the building on the other hand involves a large and constant outlay. The fact that the city holds title to an undivided half of the realty and occupies portions of the building with its own public offices does not alter the situation. The city in this matter is an agent of the sovereign power, the state. And for the proper performance of those duties it is alone answerable to the general public."

B. H. Schriber, for appellant.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Dan W. Lawler, J. C. Michael and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The complaint alleges that the city of St. Paul and the county of Ramsey owned and possessed, as tenants in common, a building known as the "Court House and City Hall;" that they negligently constructed the entrance to one of the elevator shafts in an unsafe manner; also that their servant in charge of the elevator handled it negligently, whereby the plaintiff was injured.

As one of its defenses, the city pleaded the various statutes regulating the construction, custody, and use of the building, particularly Sp. Laws 1881, c. 376, and Sp. Laws 1889, c. 64.

Briefly stated, the act of 1881 created a special courthouse commission, consisting of the mayor of the city of St. Paul (who was ex officio a member) and five other persons, to be appointed by the judges of the district court of Ramsey county. This commission was to prepare plans for a building for the use of the city and county "for a city hall and county courthouse, and for offices for the city and county officers, and such other public uses as may be deemed expedient," and submit the same, together with an estimate of the cost, to the board of county commissioners and the common council of the city for their approval. Upon their approval of the plans the commission was to proceed and construct the building, which was to be paid for out of the proceeds of a fund called "the courthouse and city hall building fund," which was to be raised by the issue and sale of bonds of the city and of the county. The act further provided that the city and county "shall hold the land occupied and needed for said building, together with the building which may be erected thereon, in common, and for the public uses aforesaid."

The act of 1889 provided that when completed the building should be placed in charge of a committee of seven, to be appointed as follows: Three annually by the president of the common council, and three annually by the chairman of the board of county commissioners; and that the mayor of the city should be ex officio a member and the chairman of...