City of Minot v. Walton

Eighth Circuit

City of Minot v. Walton

183 F. 768, 106 C.C.A. 466, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5196

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1910

DocketNo. 3,406

StatusPublished

This text of 183 F. 768 (City of Minot v. Walton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Minot v. Walton, 183 F. 768, 106 C.C.A. 466, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5196 (8th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment obtained by Ernest L. Walton against the city of Minot, in North Dakota, and David Dinnie, for personal injuries caused by falling into an excavation in a street. The liability of the city arose from neglect of its duty with respect to the condition of its thoroughfares. The excavation was made by and was in charge of Dinnie, a contractor, and, though mainly in private property, it extended into the sidewalk space along which pedestrians traveled. The accident occurred at night.

A motion by defendants at the close of the evidence for a directed verdict was denied by the trial court. The controlling issues of fact were: Was the excavation properly guarded at the place where plaintiff fell; and was he guilty of contributory negligence? A thorough examination of the record shows there was substantial evidence on both these matters to support the verdict. Some minor objections are urged, but we think it plain no error was committed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment obtained by Ernest L. Walton against the city of Minot, in North Dakota, and David Dinnie, for personal injuries caused by falling into an excavation in a street. The liability of the city arose from neglect of its duty with respect to the condition of its thoroughfares. The excavation was made by and was in charge of Dinnie, a contractor, and, though mainly in private property, it extended into the sidewalk space along which pedestrians traveled. The accident occurred at night.

A motion by defendants at the close of the evidence for a directed verdict was denied by the trial court. The controlling issues of fact were: Was the excavation properly guarded at the place where plaintiff fell; and was he guilty of contributory negligence? A thorough examination of the record shows there was substantial evidence on both these matters to support the verdict. Some minor objections are urged, but we think it plain no error was committed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 F. 768, 106 C.C.A. 466, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-minot-v-walton-ca8-1910.