Case Name: MARGARET KENNEDY v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1910-07-22
Citations: 111 Minn. 544
Docket Number: Nos. 16,615—(53)
Parties: MARGARET KENNEDY v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 544–544

Head Matter:
MARGARET KENNEDY v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY.
July 22, 1910.
Nos. 16,615—(53).
Notice of personal injury.
The notice of claim against defendant city for personal injury was sufficient. {Reporter.]
[Note] Necessity and sufficiency of notice to municipality of claim for injury on highway, see notes in 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 391; 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 757, 804, 938; 23 L. R. A. (N, S.) 2S2.
Action in the district court for Le Sueur county to recover $3,000 for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defective condition of a sidewalk in defendant city. The complaint alleged that the accident occurred on November 23, 1908; that on December 3, 1908, within thirty days after the accident, plaintiff caused a written notice to be presented to the city council of defendant, stating the time, place and circumstances of the injury and the amount of the elaim.’ The notice of claim put in evidence, after giving the time of the accident, stated that plaintiff was injured under the following circumstances: ‘‘While walking along the north side of Boulevard street, at a point near the residence ■of R. A. Daniels, at the corner of Boulevard and Maple streets, in said city of Montgomery, the undersigned fell, and received the following injuries, * * * that said fall and said injuries were caused by a defect in said sidewalk, consisting of broken planks and boards and by reason of said street not being properly lighted,” and demanded the sum of $2,000 as compensation therefor.
The answer alleged that if plaintiff sustained any injuries they were caused by her own negligence. The case was tried before Morrison, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $300. From an order denying ■defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed.
Affirmed.
F. J. Hansel and W. G. Odell, for appellant.
A. J. Edgerlon, for respondent.
Reported in 127 N. W. 1134,

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case involved the sufficiency of a notice of personal injury from a defective sidewalk under the provisions of section 768, R. L. 1905, and a variance therefrom in proof. It is governed on both points by Kandelin v. City of Ely, 110 Minn. 55, 124 N. W. 449, distinguishing Olcott v. City of St. Paul, 91 Minn. 207, 97 N. W. 879.
The conclusion of the trial court is affirmed.