Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1904-02-04
C|TyS FINANCES.
Mayors Statement of Assets, Lila.
bilities and Estimates for
Coming Year.
LIABILITIES OF $4,000
Important Opinion by City Attorney
Brown on Certain C1aims-RcpOrts
of Many City officials Presented
mt Meeting Of the DOnrd
Of Aldermen.
LIABILITIES OF $4,000


board Of aldermen, held Monday evening,
was an unusually lively one and a great
| amount of important business was
transacted. City Attorney Brown rem
dered an opinion. in which he advised
that the claims presented by Miss Lucy
Edgcumbe and Il. J. Smullins for per-
sonal injuries, said to have been sus-
tanned through the defects in the pub
| lie sidewalks be not paid until the SUI
prcme court of the State had rendered
II decision in one of the cases. Mayor
Burke presented his estimates for the
ensuing year, recommending n tax rate
not much above that of last year. n
resolution was passed asking States
Attorney Leary to mol PROSE- the suits
OF the city against the Champain Trans
portation company and the Shepard e.
Morse Lumber company, and an amend
ment to the ordinances relative to fire
protection of buildings was offered.
| CITY Attorney Browns opinion was
probably the most important feature of
| the meeting, when IL is taken into con-
| sidcration that suits on similar claims
have been brought against Chicago for
about s3S.000,000. which will bankrupt
the city if anywhere near the sums sued
| for are allowed, and what has occurred
there may occur in Burlington on n
smaller scale. His opinion in the mat
| ter was as follows:
CITY ATTORNEY BROWNS OPINION.
In the matter of the claims of Miss
| Lucia Edgcumbe and L. j. Smulins for
personal injuries, claimed to have been
sustained through defects in the public
sidewalks of the city
To the Honorable Board of Aldermen:
| am constrained to advise that no
legal liability on the part of the city
exists in either of these cases. in as
much as we have no statute expressly
| imposing such liability.
| In giving this opinion I am aware
that the courts of many of the States.
| rs we'll as the supreme court of the
United States, have hello the contrary,
and have attempted to make a distnc-
| tion between the liability in this regard
of incorporated cities having a special
charter. and termed municipal corpora
tions proper, and the liability in the
same regard. of towns and counties,
which are termed quasi corporations.
The question whether or not munich
pal corporations proper are liable at the
suit of a private individual injured by
n defect in their public ways. in the
absence of a statute expressly declar-
ing such liability, has been the subject
of much elaborate discussion in the
| courts of the different States. The re-
suit as disclosed by a careful eXamina-
ton of the cases seems to be that the
| courts of last resort in a majority of
the States. and especially the middle
and western States, have recognized
and repeatedly enforced the doctrine
that municipal corporations proper,
having under their charter or by statu-
tory provisions, exclusive care and con-
troll of the streets and highways within
their limits. are responsible at common
law for injuries arising from their neg
lect to keep them reasonably safe for
public travel
The same jurisdiction, with the eX-
ception of Iowa, Maryland and Pennsyl-
vania, held that quasi municipal corpor-
ations such as counties and towns. are
simply territorial and politica! divis-
ions of the Statc-thc agencies which
the state have brought into existence
without the consent of their inhabitants
that it may through them the better
perform. locally, those duties which 1t
owes to all citizens alike; that the duty
of maintaining in proper condition the
highways within their limits, stand
upon exactly the same footing as all
other duties which the State performs
through these agencies; that 1t Is. so
far as these quasi corporations are con-
cerned, q purely public, governmental
duty to he performed for the general
welfare OF the whole publc-not 1or
the advantage of particular sectloh'
and such quasi corporations are not Ia
BILE to a private action at the suit or
party, injured by reason of the neglect
Of their officials to keep their public
wavs in a reasonably safe condition,
unless such action is expressly given
by statute.
But the decision OF our own supreme
court, and in fact of the courts OF last
resort In all the New England states,
are uniformly In opposition to the doctrine
which gives rise to the distinction above
stated The decisions in these States are,
without execution, to the effect that in
corporated cities or municipal corpora
lions proper. AMI towns and counties, or
quasi corporations, stand upon precisely
the same footing in respect of their duty
to keep their streets and highways In
reasonably safe condition.
These decisions proceed upon the theory
that in either case this duty is Of gov
ernmental nature, administered as it were,
in behalf of the State for the general well
fare of the whole public and not for the
advantage of a particular section.
The rule in the New England states is
stated in Dillons Municipal Corporations,
Vol 2, Sec. 1000, as follows:
Upon neither towns nor cities, in view
Of the courts of New England, is there
any implied or common-law civil liabil-
ity for injuries resulting from defective
streets or sidewalks; the liability Is
wholly statutory"
This statement Is quoted with approval
by our own court in Weller VS.. Burling-
ton. 90 VT, page 2S citing also the case
of Hill VS.. City OF Boston, l22 Mass, page
ii
The case of Hill VS.. Boston was an ac-
ton brought by a pupil OF one OF the pub
lie schools of that city to recover for in
fa
condition of a staircase in a school house,
over which he was passing. The Supreme
Court of Massachusetts, in lengthy and
elaborate opinion by Chief Judge Gray,
held that the city was not liable. reason
ing upon practically the same lines as
did our own court in the case Of Weller
VS., Burlington.
The decisions OF the courts OF Arkansas
California. Michigan, South Carolina and
Wisconsin, are in lire with the decisions
| of the courts OF the New England States
The following, quoted from the opinion
of Judge Rowell in Weller vs.. Buring-
ton. would seem conclusive upon this
question:
The charter confcrs upon the city au-
thority over its streets. and makes il it's
duty to keep them in suitable and sufi-
cicnt repair, but imposes no greater duty
in this behalf than 1t imposes upon towns
in respect OF their highways. '
The New England idea is that creating
villages and cities by legislative action
does not by implication impose upon
them civil liability for the neglect of cor
porate duties in respect of those matters
that are governmental in their nature
ana which they administer as it were for
and in behalf of the State-such as the
|