*1 pipe than the outside diameter and one- pipe top diameter over the half of Ruby WEST, Appellant, pipe, limited to Uvo em- [All feet.
phasis added.] municipal CITY PROVO corporation, Respondent. Defendant interpreted judge provision The trial pay to mean that the State would for the yards placed number of cubic material exceed, position pipe, around the not to March yards ma- the number of cubic placed limiting planes.
terial within yardage
As a matter the actual
of material to fill a cut in
pipe placed might greatly exceed the agreement
limitations contained be- slope
cause of the of the cut. appellant contends that it should
paid yards for the number of cubic
can as being be calculated within the limit-
ing planes. words, In other to be wants
paid number of cubic
yards placed limiting within the material
planes empty but also volume of the
pipe in material placed. which no at all is ambiguity contends that there is an
the terms of the contract and that it should interpreted appellant, favor since
the language respondent. chosen language think is clear and that
the trial correctly. court ruled judg-
ment is affirmed. Gale, Gary
Pete N. L. Vlahos CALLISTER, TUCKETT, J, Gale, Ogden, C. Vlahos & CROCKETT, JJ., appellant. HENRIOD and concur. Provo, pendent constituting act or Ellis, tortious omission for defendant
Glen J. compensable negligence,' we so hold. respondent. —and HENRIOD, Justice. CALLISTER, J.,C. TUCKETT *2 CROCKETT, JJ., concur. Appeal no cause action sum- from a of City, mary judgment on in favor of City.
timely
by the
motion made therefor
ELLETT,
(dissenting).
Justice
Affirmed.
prevailing opinion
agree
I could
with the
if it did
no more than hold that
com-
walking on a
alleged
Plaintiff
that while
plaint
a
failed to state
cause of action. The
fell,
and
slipped
snow-covered sidewalk
plaintiff
then could
her
to
amend
damages
injuries
on
asking
sustained
might
right
show
her
to
give
facts which
City’s “negligence
of
account
recover,
ruling
but
sustain the
to
allowing
side-
of ice on a
accumulation
granting
summary judgment
located in the business
section
walk
precludes
showing
from ever
negligence
specific
..”
act of
No
on
defendant.
alleged
other than the
accumulation
evidenced
affidavit
otherwise.
summary judgment
The
motion for
pursuant
made
thereto are
statutory sanction to
urged
that
premised upon
assumption
an erroneous
1
City
agency
regulate
gave the
sidewalks
to what
the law is. The order of
delegate its
to
ordinance2 to
clearly,
states
error
to wit:
abutting owners.
maintain sidewalks to
pursuant
to
true,
not of
court finds that
Title
may be
that fact is
This
but
10-8-23,
Annotated, 1953,
here,
Utah Code
controlling
need not
moment
and we
empowered
City
Provo
gen-
point. The
decide that
authorities
4
3
responsibility
the maintenance of
erally
adhere
particularly
and we
owner,
land
sidewalks to
principle that
not liable for
authority pur-
having
exercised said
occurring
caused
on sidewalks
ordinance,
suant
formation
falling
responsibility
having
ice,
inde-
owners
assumed
other and
—without
U.S.App.D.C.
Col.,
10-8-23,
Annotated
Smith
Distr.
Utah Code
1. Title
7,
671,
189 P.2d
there is general rule as Provo clear of ice a municipality regard to ice and snow defendant, motion defendant’s for a on crosswalks is the same as that laid granted. is therefore down in respect sidewalks; is, is bound to use reasonable care to see U.C.A.1953, pur- While Section they safe for travel. ports give right require cities the property owners of real to remove ice and property, adjoining
snow from . The municipality may be held liable, it does not relieve the cities from their however, where there is an primary duty free the sidewalks accumulation of ice and snow which conditions. renders the crossing especially dangerous, particularly permits where it the snow High- in Am.Jur.2d, The law is stated and ice to accumulate in way such a Streets, ways, Bridges, as follows: to remain there for such length of time as to constitute nuisance. highways to maintain its *3 By large, ... duty § the reasonably in streets safe condition resting municipalities to remove delegated another travelers cannot be accumulations of snow and ice from their public authority so as to relieve the from qualified from time to time is a liability injured in the event that one is one, and imperative only becomes when therein, reason of defects at in least dangerous formations or obstacles have the legislature absence of action the been created and notice of their existence expressly relieving public the has been municipalities. received liability respect. from in this The actual Where ice or snow accumulates assigned work of maintenance be manner, sidewalk in ordinary others, but not the ultimate municipality must be allowed due time therefor. . . . it, to remove or so to deal with the con- requirements 508. The factual with § ditions as to render the walks as reason- respect to the removal of snow and ice ably safe ordinarily as could be ex- by municipality are different as to side- pected circumstances, . . walks and crosswalks because sidewalks designed primarily for the use of public Since the pedestrians, whereas crosswalks are a authority to exercise reasonable care to part of the street roadway designed keep its sidewalks and streets question it cannot point at the safe one owners, rough generally held that it is uneven. . . . imposing upon an a statute or ordinance In reversing favor of remove, or to owner Berger, Mrs. this found no court sand, does upon the sidewalk or ice difficulty because of the which snow re- its from not relieve moval from the entail sidewalks would keep the primary obligation city. It said: walking. . safe for If the cities and towns of this I have to make of case country charged mountain are to with City,1 Lake wherein being removing negligent for not was held was not liable that Salt of snow and ice accumulations Mrs. received sidewalks, negligence may from then icy an sidewalk. The facts from fall on although found to the acts or omis- exist this case were set forth are'charged negligent sions which can- follows: by any not reasonable effort be avoided. plain- evidence on the country, In this mountain cities Day tiff is that on to the effect Christmas and towns at an are located altitude of preceding the accident there 4,000 are, 7,000 feet, in some .and usually heavy fall of snow Salt Lake least, instances at located more or City; during that much snow had fallen inclines, steep less and where snow- December, month of fall at times is and continuous January, fell in before more time, period considerable accident; attempted that the law, including Negligence, eye clear one in the question, snowplow; omitting any with to do doing that the consists in pedestrians had, prudent ordinarily down act which an and care- snow, person and the did clear ful circumstances not under the came walks; accident occurred in would The law does that the do or omit to do. house, place front at as neg- of a vacant condemn an act or omission *4 depth ligent pre- to a considerable left on which can be done extraordinary vented for the reason that the snow the exercise of sidewalk expenditure had exertion or care or been down and money. passed it; extraordinary that the surface of sums over Salt Lake Utah P. 233 appeal's change has upon case, that there been a law and based the facts of the in the local climatic conditions since the and I would reverse re- tried, Berger case was for if we did mand the matter for proceed- such' further judicial ings take may notice our Chamber proper and would award of Commerce would convince us that it is costs. longer in this area true “snowfall
is and continuous for a considerable
period of time.” city nondelegable duty has a
its sidewalks in a safe condi- naturally
tion for pedestrians, travel greater effort is downtown al., Paul R. JACKSON et many Plaintiffs people business district Respondents, will be than sidewalk will be re- quired in the sections of the remote KENNECOTT COPPER front of a vacant house was the fact in foreign corporation, Defendant case. Appellant.
The defendant in this case is not liable for a fall due to natural of snow sidewalk but April 10, 1972. be held her for liable to
failing to maintain its sidewalks in a safe
condition,2 provided
condition can be remedied without expense part.
reasonable effort or on its do long not know how snow had
remained sidewalk or what notice regarding
the defendant had the condition.
These are matters which were neither avail-
able to in its nor considered
ruling. I do not think the defendant
entitled to a 1953, Replacement
2. See. U.C.A. Vol. 7A.