Gude v. City of Mankato

15 N.W. 175, 30 Minn. 256, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 135
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided March 6, 1883·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Gtleillan, C. J.

There was sufficient evidence in this case to justify the findings of fact. The evidence that the defect which caused the injury had existed for a considerable, time sustains the finding that the city had notice of it. To prove notice of the particular defect causing the injury, evidence that, for a considerable time prior to the injury, the sidewalk, at and near the place, was in general bad condition, was competent. It is the duty of a municipal corporation, having the duty to keep in repair streets and sidewalks, not only to put them in repair when it has actual notice of defects, but to exercise reasonable care and diligence to know whether they are or are not in proper condition; and where injury is caused by a partic-lar defect, evidence of neglect of this duty by the corporation, where the performance of it would have led to knowledge of the defect, is competent to charge the corporation with liability.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gude v. City of Mankato, 15 N.W. 175, 30 Minn. 256, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 135 (Mich. 1883).

15 N.W. 175 (Gude v. City of Mankato) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

MacKinnon v. City of Minneapolis
135 N.W. 814 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1912)
City of Roswell v. Davenport
89 P. 256 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1907)
Laurie v. City of Ballard
64 P. 906 (Washington Supreme Court, 1901)
Lyons v. City of Red Wing
78 N.W. 868 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1899)
Osborne v. City of Detroit
32 F. 36 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan, 1886)
Gallagher v. City of St. Paul
28 F. 305 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota, 1886)
Kellogg v. Village of Janesville
24 N.W. 359 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1885)