The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-01-15
CANNOT HOLD A CITY
JUDGE KELLY MAKES ANOTHER
RULING ON THE SUBJECT OF
ACCIDENTS,
IN CASE OF SLIPPERY WALKS,
CAUSED BY BOYS COASTING, THE
CORPORATION Is NOT HELD
LIABLE,
IN CASE OF SLIPPERY WALKS
EVEN IF SOME WE'RE sANDED
Conditions in Connection With Mu-
inequalities That Would BE I'M
possible to Guard Against.

Judge Kelly made an important rul-
ing in the district court yesterday. In
an action against the city for damages
for personal injuries caused by a slip
perry sidewalk, Judge Kelly granted
the city's motion for judgment i'll its
favor on the pleadings.
The case was that of Thomas w. Car
ney, minor, who sued the city for
$12,214 damages for personal injuries
sustained by him in consequence Of
falling on a slippery sidewalk on East
Twelfth street, Nov. 80 last. The COM
plant alleged that the city carelessly
allowed boys to coast on the sidewalk
thus rendering it slippery and danger
Gus, and, moreover, neglected to scat
ter sand or dirt on the sidewalk in
question, although it had sprinkled
other sidewalks with sand.
Before the jury was impanelled the
corporation attorney moved that judg-
ment be entered in favor of the lily Oh
the pleadings. Judge Kelly granted
the motion and in 50 doing delivered
an oral opinion, the substance of winch
was as follows:
THE plaintiff alleges two causes of
6AOllO1l oteetItlSl lIlG CITY OIle LOT It's 1dl1-
ure to prevent children from coasting
on the sidewalks and streets, and the
other for neglecting to scatter sand on
the sidewalk Failure to scatter sand
on the sidewalks when they become
slippery from any cause cannot cOnsti-
tLte negligence which would support
an action against the city for damages.
unless the slippery condition of The
sidewalk itself would support an action.
H. .%s,,v
gent in preventing that which was in
itself not negligent. 1t has been de-
cided that in this country and climate
the mere slippery condition of side
walks or streets caused by snow and
ice thereon never furnishes a ground Of
action against a municipality; that
these are conditions that it would be
practically impossible to guard against.
and-aS the supreme court of this state
has saId-which would bankrupt any
city If such should be held to be the
law Inc city cannot guard against
the mere slippery condition of a side
walk"
The other question is, is it negligence
On the part of the city of st. Paul
having knowledge of an ordinance for
DlddlnS cOasting on the streets and
sidewalks, to fail to prevent the i'm
proper use of SledS on the streets or
SIDEWALKS. This raises the impOrtant
question whether the failure of the
city TO prevent a citizen from violat-
Ing its laws is a ground of action
against the city by some one who
claims to have been injured thereby?
cannot hold that it is actionabIe neg
llgence upon the part of the. city of ST.
aul TO fail to execute its ordinances
IOfp!ddlng coaSting on the city streets
CT sidewalks.
NOW to show where a holding con-
trary TO that would lead us we can
Just reflect for a moment. If I hold
that the city of St. Paul is Liable fo,.
not stopping all the boys in this citv
from sliding down hill. to begin with
II would De imposing upon the CITY an
ilhposSlolhty. Further than that. there
IS tnlnk, an ordinance recurring
everybody to clean off their side
walks within so many hours after q
snowfall. 1t is not done; you all know
II Is not done. Now, if I hold that this
ordnance is imperative upon the citv
ana that the violation of it would sub
Ject the city to suit for damages
tneh necessarily a violation of any
other ordinance must be held to h..
acuonabie, and failure of the cfty to
compel citizens within the number Of
hours limited by that ordinance TO
clean off their sidewalks. would render
the city liable for every slippery place
within the city of St. Paul without anv
question.
therefore under the view that r
take Of the law and upon these plead
lhSS, 1t becomes my duty to grant the
motion of the defendant"