Baumgartner v. City of Mankato
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action against tbe city of Mankato and tbe Mankato Street-Railway Company to recover for injuries occasioned by the negligent construction and maintenance of tbe railway track of tbe defendant company. By section 3 of tbe ordinance cited, "no part of tbe track shall be operated until tbe same shall have been inspected and approved by tbe city engineer.”
Read the full summary
Action against tbe city of Mankato and tbe Mankato Street-Railway Company to recover for injuries occasioned by the negligent construction and maintenance of tbe railway track of tbe defendant company. By section 3 of tbe ordinance cited, "no part of tbe track shall be operated until tbe same shall have been inspected and approved by tbe city engineer.” By section 4, tbe company, when required by tbe common council, was to place one plank, of a specified width, along each side of the rails, the entire length. At the trial it was established by evidence that, at the time of the completion of…
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
This action was brought against both defendants 'above named to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, resulting from an accident upon a street of the defendant city, along which the defendant railway company was operating a street-railway under an ordinance of the city. Plaintiff dismissed the action as to the defendant city, upon the ground, as stated in the argument, that plaintiff had failed to give the city notice within the time required by law to hold it responsible for the alleged damage. At the trial a verdict was rendered against the defendant railway company for…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ulmen v. SchwiegerMontana Supreme Court · 1932
- Metcalf v. MellenUtah Supreme Court · 1920
- Foster v. Herbison Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- City of Vincennes v. Vincennes Traction Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1918