Gullikson v. McDonald

64 N.W. 812, 62 Minn. 278, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 69
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedOctober 24, 1895
DocketNos. 9727-(310)
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 64 N.W. 812 (Gullikson v. McDonald) 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
Gullikson v. McDonald, 64 N.W. 812, 62 Minn. 278, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 69 (Mich. 1895).

Opinion

CANTY, J.

The defendant, the village of Ada, demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This is an appeal by it from an order overruling the demurrer.

The complaint alleges that said village is, and on January 2(5, 1895, was, a municipal corporation, and prior thereto caused to be erected a village prison or lockup, in which it required persons under arrest to be detained and imprisoned; that said building was open, cold, and wholly unfit to be used as a' lockup in the winter season, or to detain any person in during cold weather; that the defendant McDonald was then the duly appointed, qualified, and acting marshal of said village; that on said day, as said marshal, he arrested the plaintiff, and, against his will, detained and imprisoned him in said lockup all night, without reasonable cause, right, or authority to do so; that said night was very cold, and plaintiff was so kept in the lockup, without fire, for two hours, and the balance of the time, during said night, said lockup was insufficiently heated, by reason of which plaintiff contracted rheumatism, has suffered pain therefrom, and been permanently disabled, to his damage in the sum of $5,000.

We are of the opinion that the complaint states no cause of action against.the defendant village. It is a well-settled rule of law that! municipal corporations are not liable for either negligent omissions J or- commissions in the performance of duties for which they receive j no pecuniary profit, but which are imposed upon them as mere f governmental agencies. Thus, it is held that a city is not liable for the negligence of its servant operating the passenger elevator in its city hall. Snider v. City of St. Paul, 51 Minn. 466, 53 N. W. 763. A county is not liable for its negligence in permitting the footwalks used as a means of access to its courthouse to be out of repair. Dosdall v. County of Olmsted, 30 Minn. 96, 14 N. W. 458. There is one well-established, but anomalous, exception to this rule; [280]*280and that is the rule which holds municipal corporations (as distinguished from quasi municipal corporations) liable for permitting their streets and highways to be defective, or out of repair. If this general rule of immunity of municipal corporations from liability is not always good public policy, it is a question for the legislature, land not for the courts. The rule is now too long and too well established for the courts to change it.

That a municipal corporation is not liable for the wrongful acts of its police officers, constable, or marshal, in making arrests or detaining prisoners, is too well settled to require discussion.

The order overruling the demurrer is reversed.

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

Related

Invest Cast, Inc. v. City of Blaine
471 N.W.2d 368 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1991)
McCorkell v. City of Northfield
123 N.W.2d 367 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1963)
Reierson v. City of Minneapolis
118 N.W.2d 223 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1962)
O'Connor v. City of Minneapolis
182 F. Supp. 494 (D. Minnesota, 1960)
Hitchcock v. County of Sherburne
34 N.W.2d 342 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1948)
Archer v. City of Austell
23 S.E.2d 512 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Franklin v. Town of Richlands
170 S.E. 718 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1933)
Mokovich v. Independent School District No. 22
225 N.W. 292 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)
Howard v. City of Stillwater
214 N.W. 656 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1927)
Emmons v. City of Virginia
188 N.W. 561 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1922)
Roerig v. Houghton
175 N.W. 542 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
Lamont v. Stavanaugh
152 N.W. 720 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1915)
Ackeret v. City of Minneapolis
151 N.W. 976 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1915)
Smith's Admr. v. Commissioners of Sewerage of Louisville
143 S.W. 3 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1912)
Maryland ex rel. Pryor v. Miller
194 F. 775 (Fourth Circuit, 1911)
Maryland ex rel. Pryor v. Miller
180 F. 796 (D. Maryland, 1910)
City of Winona v. Botzet
169 F. 321 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)
Claussen v. City of Luverne
115 N.W. 643 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Wilcox v. . City of Rochester
82 N.E. 1119 (New York Court of Appeals, 1907)
Carty's Admr. v. Village of Winooski
62 A. 45 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 N.W. 812, 62 Minn. 278, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gullikson-v-mcdonald-minn-1895.