The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-16
CITY WAS GUHTLESS.
retrieved From Responsibility TO
Flooding u Tannery.

CITf WAS GUILTLESS.
Relieved From Responsibility for
Flooding u Tannery.
The supreme court yesterday helped
out the taxpayers of the city Of ST.
Paul. by reversing the decision of the
lower court in the case of Herman
Taubert against the city of st. Paul,
which grew out of the overlooking of
the plaintiffs tannery by backwater
during heavy storm.
The TaubertS have a tannery on Wa
baSha street south, between Sidney
and Belvidere, overlooking the river
bottoms. The tract was originally well
drained, but in the building of street
embankment, the city engineering de-
partment left a drain, which, as it
turned out, was not large enough to
carry off all the water which accu-
mulated during this storm. The lower
court decided that the city should have
protected Taubert against damage Of
this kind; the supreme court rules that
II the protection given was usual and
ordinary, the city is not to be blamed
for damages resulting from unusual
storms.
In two other cases the lower court
was sustained. The syllbi follow:
Herman Taubert, respondent, VS.. The City
of st. Paul, appellant.
Within the city Of ST. Paul and on the
premises of the plaintiff is a natural water
course used by him in the tanning business.
The city graded public street which ad-
joins his premises and in doing so erected a
large solid embankment across this water
course, except that it built wood culvert
under the embankment and across said street
for the purpose of carrying off said water.
By reason of an unusually heavy rain storm
this culvert was unable to carry off the large
volume of water which there accumulated,
and it flowed back upon and damaged the
plaintiffs personal property situated in his
tannery Plaintiff brought an action against
the defendant to recover damages for such
injury and the facts proven warranted the
court in giving to the jury as part of it's
charge the defendants request, as follows
1.-The city of st. Paul cannot be held liable
in this case, unless the damage complained
of was caused by lack of reasonable care
or skill ON its part. 1t was not an insurer
of the sufficiency of the means adopted to
carry off the water of the creek. 1t was not
absolutely bound to provide an adequate out
let for this water. If 1t employed competent
engineers. or other agents, to construct the
work, and they, in the exercise of an honest
judgment, constructed a box of such capacity
that they were reasonably justified in believ-
ing, and did believe in view of all the cir
cumStaHces, it would be sufficient to carry off
this water, the city would not be liable. al
though it did on the occasion when PLAINTIFF S
premises were flooded prove insufficient. Nor
it required to anticipate extraordinary
and unusual storms, which would not be ex-
pected to occur in view of the. past history OF
the country
The court refused to give this request. Held.
error. Order reversed. = Buck, j.
James Murph y appellant, Great Northern
Railway Company. respondent, q .:.i:.....l q. :
The defendant railroad had in its general
yards ar st. Paul a large heavy transfer
table built upon wheels, which rested upon
rails and was movable, the whole machinery
being placed in large pit and used for
transferring heavy material from its, shops
to its, railroad cars. Iron braces connected
different parts of this machinery few inches
from the ground. This table was operated
either by compressed air, cranks, or by en-
ployes pushing it by hand; some of the en-
ployes while doing SO standing inside the
braces. Plaintiff, while in this position and
pushing the table with his shoulder, came in
contact with block two feet ten inches long,
eight and one-half inches wide and four and
one-half inches thick, which was lying be-
tween the rails, and being unable to stop the
moving of the table, plaintiff was forced into
the angie of the braces and caught by the
block, whereby his leg was broken. Plaintiff
had on two or three previous occasions, snort
ly before this accident, and only few hours
before on the day of the accident, pushed
this table in the same manner. The block
was no part Of the tackle and no part OF the
instrumentalities by which 1T was moved, and
it was not shown by what means it was placed
between the rails, whether by accident, a
wrongdoer or an, employe. No one had ever
seen it there before and the length of time
1t had been in that position was not proven.
no. defects and was suitable for the purpose
for which 1t was constructed and the de-
PENDANTS other employees assisting in moving
the table were competent for the work IN
which they were engaged.
g. In actions of this kind the negligence
of either party is to be measured by the
conditions of things existing at the place
where the injury took place and then known
to exist by each party.
8. The defendant having furnished suitable
instrumentalities for the work to be per-
formed, competent workmen to assist in the
work. and being without notice. in fact, Of
the dangerous obstruction, and as it's existence
for so short a time did not imply notice
there is no presumption that the accident
happened in consequence of failure of duty
on the part OF defendant toward plaintiff.
f. The mere happening of an injury TO the
servant was not evidence OF negligence on the
part of the master and under the circum-
the rart of the defendant rested upon the
plaintiff
Held, that the defendant was not guilty of
negligence in the matter and the action is
not maintainable. Order affirmed. Buck, ].
Margaret X. Martin, as administrative ETC..
appellant VS.. Northern Pacific Beneficial
Association, respondent.
The plaintiffs inteState NJ and defendant
we're members of unincorporated assoca-
ton, the object of which was to provide
relief for its members when disabled by ae-
cident or sickness and at their deaths for
their families. While a member of such as
sociation NJ was injured by an accident
and thereupon he was taken to defendants
hospital for medical treatment, pursuant to
the constitution and bylaws of the association
where through neglect and maltreatment he
died The administrative of NJ. and as his
sole heir and next of kin, brought suit against
the association to recover damages suffered
by reason of his death in the manner afore-
said.
Held, that the action was not maintainable
Order affirmed. ,.s t,.s., Buck, J.