No. 22,136 | Minn. | May 13, 1921
Lead Opinion
In February, 1919, Morris, Shepard & Dougherty and the George J. Grant Construction Company were engaged in 'constructing the head-house of the St. Paul Union Railway Station under and pursuant to contracts with the St. Paul Union Depot Company. They procured a permit from the city of St. Paul to use a portion of Sibley street adjacent to the headhouse for a specified time in connection with the work. They were required by the permit to make and maintain “a clear walk four feet wide” around the portion of the street which they were permitted to occupy, and they made and maintained the prescribed walk. On the evening of February 27, 1919, plaintiff, while traveling along this walk, slipped or stumbled on a ridge or hummock of snow and ice formed by the feet of the pedestrians during and after a snowstorm, and sustained injuries for which she brought suit against the city, the depot company and the contractors'. She recovered a verdict against -the depot company and the contractors, but the court subsequently rendered judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict. She appealed.
Lot owners are not liable to pedestrians for injuries sustained in consequence of stumbling or slipping on ridges or hummocks of snow and ice which form from natural causes on the adjacent sidewalk. 13 R. C. L. 415, and cases there cited; Noonan v. City of Stillwater, 33 Minn. 198" court="Minn." date_filed="1885-02-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/noonan-v-city-of-stillwater-7964676?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7964676">33 Minn. 198, 22 N. W. 444. They are not liable to pedestrians for injuries resulting from a defect or dangerous condition in the sidewalk, unless they created such defect or dangerous condition.
The depot company and its contractors clearly were not liable to plaintiff for the injuries in question, unless the fact that they had provided a temporary sidewalk to serve the public, while they occupied the original sidewalk, imposed upon them liabilities in respect to such temporary sidewalk which did not exist'in respect to the original sidewalk. The law recognizes that, when buildings are being constructed in cities, it is sometimes necessary to occupy a portion of the adjacent street, and permits the 'builder to occupy so much thereof as may be necessary to enable him to carry on his operations. The city may control and regulate the extent and manner in which the street may be used for such purpose, and where the sidewalk is obstructed may require the builder to provide a temporary passageway for pedestrians. In the present case the contractors were rightfully occupying a portion of the street under authority from the city, and they had complied with the requirements of the city by laying a temporary sidewalk around the obstruction for the use of travelers. The occupation of the street and the laying of the walk, having been authorized by the city, were lawful. 13 R. C. L. 219.
We have not been cited to any case holding that under such circumstances the law imposes on a contractor or builder any other or greater responsibility in respect- to such temporary passageways than it imposes
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
The contractors made application to the city for permission to make use of a portion of the street and sidewalk in question for -the deposit of material to be used in the building then under construction by them for the abutting lot owner. The application was granted, but on the express 'Condition that they make .and maintain a "clear walk four feet wide” around the obstruction thus created, and "save the city harmless from any and all suits, damages, costs and charges that may accrue from the applicant’s use of said place.” They accepted the privilege granted, with the conditions attached, and subsequently constructed the substitute walk and thereafter made use of the regular sidewalk with their building material. Ice and snow were negligently permitted to accumulate and remain upon the substitute walk to such an extent as to form ridges and unevenness rendering it unsafe for public use. That condition of the ' walk was the cause of the injury to plaintiff.
In my opinion the facts stated, which are not in dispute, made a ease for recovery, and the trial court erred in directing judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict. The stipulation to “make and maintain” the substitute walk imposed upon the contractors the obligation to keep and maintain it in safe and suitable condition for public use.
I therefore-respectfully dissent.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting).
I agree with the Chief Justice.