Gude v. City of Mankato

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Gude v. City of Mankato

15 N.W. 175, 30 Minn. 256, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 135

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 6, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 15 N.W. 175 (Gude v. City of Mankato) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.W. 175, 30 Minn. 256, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gude-v-city-of-mankato-minn-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack