City of Grand Forks v. Allman

Citations

• 153 F. 532
• 83 C.C.A. 554
• 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4428

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal Coepobations — Actions Against fob Peksonal Injuby — Conditions Pbecedbnt.</p> <p>Under Rev. Code N. D. 1899, § 2172, which requires as a condition precedent to the maintaining of an action against a city for a personal injury that a verified claim setting forth the time, place, cause, and extent of the injury shall be presented to the mayor and common council for audit and allowance within sixty days after the happening of the injury, a claim is duly presented where it is presented to and filed by the city auditor within the specified time.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 36, Municipal Corporations, § 1704.] '</p> <p>2. Same — Obstbuction in Stbebts — Duty to Remove.</p> <p>It is the duty of a city whenever a dangerous obstruction appears in its streets, even though it was unauthorized, to use reasonable diligence to remove it, and what constitutes such diligence depends on the facts in each case, and especially upon the fact whether the existence and dangerous character of the obstruction was known, or in the exercise of reasonable supervision and diligence could have been known by the city in time to have caused its removal before it produced the injury complained of.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 36, Municipal Corporations, §§ 1612-1615.]</p> <p>3. Same — Action fob Peksonal Injuby — Question of Negligence.</p> <p>In an action against a city to recover for a personal injury, it was shown that, when walking at night on one of the most frequently used streets of the city, plaintiff fell over a loose plank and was injured, that some time before a water pipe had been temporarily laid in the street upon the pavement and covered to prevent freezing, and that' the plank in question had been placed on the covering to keep it in place. Although it was not so placed by authority of the city, it had been there for a week or more prior to the injury. Held, that under such evidence the question of the