Teryll v. City of Faribault

• Decision Date: 08 November 1901
• Citation: 84 Minn. 341,87 N.W. 917
• Parties: TERYLL v. CITY OF FARIBAULT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

84 Minn. 341

87 N.W. 917

TERYLL

v.CITY OF FARIBAULT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 8, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Rice county; Thomas S. Buckham, Judge.

Action by Cora V. Teryll and others against the city of Faribault. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A former decision in this case (84 N. W. 458, 81 Minn. 519) with respect to the sufficiency of the notice of a claim for damages given pursuant to chapter 248, Laws 1897, followed.

2. In an action against a city or village for damages for injuries caused by a defective street, the injured party is not limited in his recovery to the amount claimed in his notice, given pursuant to chapter 248, Laws 1897. While that statute requires the notice to contain a specification of the compensation claimed, the injured party is not concluded by the amount stated therein, but may recover his actual damages. Thomas H. Quinn, for appellant.

Batchelder & Batchelder, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defective condition of a sidewalk in defendant city. Plaintiff had a verdict in the court below, and defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial. Two questions are presented for consideration: (1) Whether the notice or claim for damages served upon the city pursuant to the provisions of chapter 248, Laws 1897, was sufficient; and (2) whether plaintiff is concluded with respect to the amount of recovery by the sum claimed in such notice.

The case was here on a former appeal, and the notice of claim for damages was then held sufficient. 81 Minn. 519, 84 N. W. 458. That decision, whether right or wrong, must be treated as the law of the case, and the question cannot be re-examined at this time.

Chapter 248, supra, provides that before any city or village in this state shall be liable to any person for damages for or on account of any injury alleged to have been received or suffered by reason of any defect in any bridge, street, road, or sidwalk, the person so alleged to have been injured, or some one in his behalf, shall give to the city or village council, within 30 days after the injury, notice thereof, and shall present his claim for compensation to such council, stating therein when and where, and the circumstances under which, he was injured, and the amount of compensation demanded. By the notice served in this case plaintiff claimed the sum of $500 as compensation for her injuries, but subsequently brought her action to recover $1,000. The trial court was requested to instruct the jury that she was limited to the amount claimed in the notice, and could recover no more. The instruction was refused, and the refusal is assigned as error. We are of opinion that the learned trial court was right, and that plaintiff was not limited in her recovery to the amount claimed in the notice. The object and purpose of the...