On Fеbruary 2, 1934, at about three o’clock in the afternoon, plaintiff, a woman 61 years of age, fell on a crosswalk in the city of Duluth and was injured. She sued the city, alleging that it had negligently failed to keep the street and crosswalk in a reasonably safe condition in that it permitted an accumulation of ice. and snow to remain on the street and crosswalk for such a length of time as to cause the formаtion, by pedestrian and vehicular traffic, of slippery and dangerous ridges, hummoсks, and irregularities on the surface of the street and crosswalk, of which conditiоn the city had knowledge, and that as a result of this condition on the crosswalk
*291
plаintiff was caused to slip and fall, sustaining permanent, and disabling injuries. The city denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Defendant was granted a directed verdict. Thereafter, on plaintiff’s motion, a new triаl ivas granted, the order reciting that it was granted exclusively for an error of law occurring at the trial, namely, the action of the court in directing a verdict for defendant. See Gale v. Fred W. Pearce Corp.
Plaintiff’s evidence аs to the condition of the crosswalk consisted of the testimony of herself and thrеe other witnesses, two of whom ivere employed in stores situated at the cоrners of the intersection where the crossAvalk is located and Avho had had occasion daily to witness the condition of the street and crosswalk. These Avitnesses testified that at the place Avhere plaintiff fell the icy surface of the crosswalk was “ridgy” Avith “humps and lumps and foot prints and automobile ruts”; that the “humps of ice” walling the automobile ruts Avere from seven to nine, inches deep and that footprints had- caused ridges from four to five inches deep; that automobiles, starting from a “stop” sign on the street intersecting the crossAvalk, churned the accumulatеd ice and snow and made the surface of the crosswalk “jagged” and irregular; thаt automobile and pedestrian traffic at this intersection, First avenue east and Superior street, was heavy; that this “ridgy” condition of “humps and lumps” on the icy surfacе of the street and crosswalk had existed for a Aveek or tAvo Aveeks and .that thеy had witnessed no efforts by the city to obviate the condition by sanding the street or otherwise. From this testimony the jury could find that there existed ón the crosswalk where plaintiff fеll “slippery and dangerous ridges, depressions, hummocks, and irregularities” [see 197 Minn. áOá] formеd by heavy traffic on a surface of ice and snow which the defendant municipality had alloAved to accumulate for a period of from one to two weeks, and that the city was negli
*292
gent in permitting such a condition. A municipal corpоration is liable for damages resulting from its negligent failure to keep its sidewalks and crosswalks reasonably safe for public use. McClain v. City of Duluth,
The proof was amply sufficient to sustain a finding that the municipality had at least constructive notice of the dangerous condition, for the testimony shows it had existed for from one to two weeks. McClain v. City of Duluth, supra (condition existed six days, city held liable); Barrett v. City of Virginia, supra (condition еxisted one week, city liable) ; Callahan v. City of Duluth, supra (condition existed for from ten days tо two week's, city liable). The testimony of defendant’s street foreman establishes that the city was so far apprised of the condition of the streets on and befоre the day of the accident that the street foreman and a crew of four were engaged in sanding the streets, and he testified that the sanding crew, on February 2, 1934, trеated the particular street on which is located the crosswalk where рlaintiff slipped and fell.
The evidence made a case for the jury, and it was error to direct a verdict for defendant. This error was properly corrected by the order granting a new trial.
The order is affirmed.