The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-03-09
TO REIMBURSE DENVER.
= Bill FaVOrably Reported by the
House Committee on CGaims.

House Committee on Claims.
The Committee on Claims Of the House
has presented a favorable report on bill
to repay 10 the c,.y Of Denver the sum
Of $4,000 for amounts OF judgments 1t has
been compelled to Fay for damages incur
red by reason Of negligent construction By
the United States Of sidewalks adjacent TO
the postofhce building in that city. Upon
the completion Of the postofIiee building in
the city Of Denver the Government caused
to be constructed adjacent thereto a
cement sidewalk with considerable slope
toward the street. It was finished so
smoothly as to become dangerous when
ever any snow fell.
Bridget Hickey and Matilda Human at
diferen; times fell upon this sidewalk,
sustaining serious injury and damage.
They brought suit against the city OF Den
yer TO recover damages. and obtained
judgments in the district court. and upon
appeal to the court Of appeals Of the
State OF Colorado the judgments were af-
hrmed- On the 18th day Of January. 1898.
the city paid In full satisfaction of the
Judgment in favor OF Bridget Hickey ST.
zS6-o1. and on the same day paid. in sat
isfaction OF the judgment in fayDr of Ma
tiida Human. the sum Of $1.S7.7O.
According TO an ordinance Of the city OF
Denver. the owners Of lots fronting upon
streets are required TO construct. at their
own expense, sidewalks. and to keep and
maintain the same in good repair Upon
any defect in a sidewalk being discovered
Jae proper city official has the right to
serve notice upon the owner TO repair the
side walk within a certain number OF
hours, and upon failure Of the owner so 10
90 the city can either prefer a complaint
against The owner and have him fined for
falling to repair the same or the city
can DO the work Itself and can create a
lien upon the adjacent property for the
amount it has been compelled to expend
in labor. or course. the city mas no such
rights as against the United States. IL
cannot compel the United States Govern
meGt TO repair a sidewalk in front OF its
premises.
Il an accident occurs by reason Of a de-
feet In the construction OF sidewalk the
party injured can sue the city and the
owner Of the adjoining property. or he can
sue the city alone. In the event that the
party injured RECEIVERS damages from the
city. the city has an action against the
property owner. whose duty It was under
the ordinance TO keep the sidewalk in re-
pair. Tor the amour IL has been COM
PEELED TO pay 10 such INJURED person. The
law Is clear that such rights exist where
the defect IS in the original construction
Of a sidewalk built by the Ownor OF the ad-
jaCeEt property. The city has no recovery
against the Government in court under
the Tucker act. as that act does not au-
thOrize a recovery for tort
The committee in It's report says 1t
rs true the committee has received a com
munication from the Treasury Department
10 which it denies liability in such cases.
which letter is hereto annexed. But you-
committee does not see why the Govern
ment should be relieved from liability OF
this kind. when a private individual act
ing In the same manner and owning the
property similarly situated, would be COM
PEELED 10 pay To the city the amount OF
the judgment recovered against il for dam
ages caused by negligent construction OF A
sidewalk put down by the owner OF the
property. In this case the officials OF the
Government had full knowledge Of the
dangerous character o. this sidewalk as
is shown from the report OF the custodian
OF the building in Denver, set forth in
the letter OF Secretary Gage
And before the officials at the pOstOffice
would consent 10 even let the city remedy
the defect the custodian was compelled 20
write TO the Treasury Department 10 as
certain whether it would object 10 the
city remedying the defect by rouEheniug
the sidewalk These cases against the city
were fought by the city attorney aad ap-
peais taken 10 the proper appellate court
Of the State and from the opinion IN the
appellate court Il Is clear that the city
neglected no rights II had TO defeat the
plaintiffs.
las a private individual owning the same
property would. under the law OF the State
OF Colorado have been compelled 20 reim-
burss the city for the amount e had 10
nav Va soc no reason why the Govern
ment IN good morals and equity should no
pay he same amount. AS the amount paid
BY the city in satisfaction OF these judg-
ments and costs amount to $3,l74-55, we
think the bin should be amended 10 con-
form herewith. and also to sta.e the
judg 0ents sn satisfied by the city Of Den
W..