The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1909-12-03
&. FORKS LOSES
PAULSNESS CASE
SUPREME COURT HANDED DOWN
IMPORTANT RULING YEsTER-
DAY-MAN WHO PUTS OBJ
sTRUcTIoN ON STREET NOT
RESPONSIBLE.

In a decision handed down by the
state supreme court yesterday Grand
Forks loses out in it's case against B.
o. Paulsness. Incidentally the supreme
court renders an important ruling.
Paulsness placed on the sidewalk a
one-inch pipe and protected it with a
two-inch plank nailed down on eacn
side of it. Later some party, whose
name does NOT appear in the action,
placed manure over the pipe and on
top of this manure placed a loose
plank. This plank was so placed that
one end would tip up when the other
end was stepped on. A Grand Forks
citizen tripped over the plank at a
time when 1t was so upended and
falling was badly injured. He recov-
cred damages from the city and the
latter in turn sued Paulsness.
Paulsness lost out in Judge Tenn
pleton's court but the supreme court
reverses the decision holding that while
a party is responsible for damages
which arise from an obstruction placed
III bAAC SNAOCNt WAlCblACA pAoCCA NACL0 ny
license from the city or not, he is not
responsible for damages which arise
from changes or additions to the OBJ
struction, placed there by some third
parry.
Following is the syllabus Of the case:
In the supreme court, state of North
Dakota, March term, 1909, city of
Grand Forks plaintiff and respondent,
VS.. B. o. Paulsness, defendant and ap-
pellant.
l. A party, who. for his own benefit
or convenience, or under license from
city of this state, places upon a pub
lie thoroughfare a structure, which
from its nature or from a failure to
properly guard it or keep it in repair,
is or may become dangerous, is under
an implied contract with the city that
while such structure is maintained up
on the street he will exercise ordinary
care to protect the public from danger
and the city from loss; and in case of
injury to one using the street by rea-
son of such structure or the manner
in which ir is kept, the party who thus
rendered the street unsafe will be re-
garded as the real wrong doer and If
the city sustains loss through payment
of damages to the person injured, he
will be held to be an indemitor of the
city.
2. In a case where a city, having
paid a judgment Obtained by a person
injured upon it's streets in an action
predicated upon an alleged failure Of
the city to keep it's streets in safe
condition, brings suit against the party
who under license express or implied
from the city placed on the street the
structure or obstruction by which the
injury was caused, the defendant if
he has been given reasonable notice
and opportunity to defend upon the
trial of the original action is conclud-
ed as to all matters of fact necessary
to establish a liability from the city
to the person injured and as to any
matter which might have been urged
as defense by the city against such
liability. Unless. however, it appears
that evidence showing the liability Of
the alleged indemnitor was necessarily
inovlved in the determination of the
original action and passed upon by the
trial court in rendering judgment, the
defendant is NOT concluded upon the
point Notwithstanding the liability Of
the city he was not at fault and has
not failed in any duty which he owed
to the city or the person injured; and
may plead and show such facts as a
defense upon the trial
8. A person placing structure upon
a street for his own benefit or con-
veniencs, under his implied contract
with the city to protect the public
from danger and the city from loss, is
required, TO maintain such structure