The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1909-07-08
Judge Belden Orders Verdict
for the City in Klsor Personal
Damage Suit Recently Tried
LAYS DOWN BROAD PRINCIPLE
Declares Verdict of $4,000 Against
the City is Not Only Excessive
but Not in Keeping With
Law and Evidence

Judge E. B. Belden of the Circuit
Court, handed down a decision this
morning of wide interest when he di
rected that the verdict of the jury in
the personal damage suit Of Margaret
Krisor VS.. the City Of Kenosha be SET
aside and the complaint dismissed. Al
the last term of the Circuit Court the
jury brought in a verdict allowing the
plaintiff in the action damages in the
amount Of $2,100 and the costs of the
action. The decision Of the court is
interesting not only on account of the
fact that it will probably save the city
a large sum of money, but in the deci
sion the court interpreted the law in
regard to sidewalk cases in very in
teresting manner Incidentally the de
cision Of the court is big legal vic
tory for City Attorney John Q. Slater
who advised the city that the plain
tiff had no cause for action and that
the city for this reason should make
no settlement with her.
In his decision the court says ir part
"The court is of the opinion that the
assessment of damages in favor of the
plaintiff by the jury in this session is
clearly excessive and for that reason
if the case were otherwise impregnable,
a new trial should be awarded.
"A city is not bound at all times
to keep it's streets or sidewalks in a
condition of absolute safety, but only
reasonably safe. The court holds as
matter of law that the sidewalk at
the point in question was at the time
in question in reasonably safe conol-
ton for public travel That the plain
tiff fell upon Ice thereon and was in
jured is a misfortune, but not ground
for recovery of damages against the
city.
1T is too plain for argument that
the cause of the plaintiff S injury was
the smooth surface of the ice. It is
well settled that mere slipperiness of a
sidewalk creates no right of action.
Liability of a city for injuries
caused by detecting sidewalks is, in
this state, exclusively statutory and it
is incumbent on the person complaining
in order to recover damages, not only
to bring his case within the statute
but also to establish negligence and
proximate cause by the preponderance
of credible evidence. This has not
been done in this case.
"The court is of the opinion that
there is no liability upon the defendant
in this ease to respond to the plaintiff
In damages, Defendant s motion fol-
non-suit and for direction of a verdict
might either have been properly grant
ed, but they were not because at that
time the court entertained the view
that Section 1889 r. S. did not amply
to this case and because the court de-
clded the case to be complete so that
final Judgment might be directed by
the Supreme Court rather than a new
trial possibly ordered should the case
be appealed. The court, now being
satisfied that the defendant city is
under no liability to the plaintiff in
the action, and that a verdict in favor
of the defendant might have properly
been granted, may grant or direct a
verdict regardless of the verdict of the
jury.
considering the views of the court
herein expressed, it would be useless tc
go through the labor and expense OF
another trial.
" Where it clearly appears to the
court what action should be taken OF
what judgment should be directed in q
case the court need not wait for a
formal motion, but may order the
proper Judgment.
" Judgment will be ordered in favor
of the defendant Notwithstanding the
verdict, dismissing plaintiffs com
plant.
plaintiffs motion for Judgment on
the verdict will be denied.''