2005-09-28 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP-19-2005 15:00 LEAGUE OF MN en I ES 6512811296 p.e5 49 is or should be obvious to a child, and therefore is not an unreasonable risk to trespassing children. Carqill. Inc. v. Zimmer, 374 F.2d 924 (8th Cir. 1967). This court analyzed several Minnesota cases concluding that where liability was imposed, the defendant ha.d knowledge of foreseeable harm because of the attraction of children to the area. rg. at 930; See Heitman v. City of Lake City, 225 Minn. 117, 30 N.W.2d 18 (~947) (A child drowned when he fell off a wall and into a harbor built and maintained by the city. Liability was imposed because children frequently used the wall and the city had not fenced it off. In addition, an occasional warning by the harbor master did not constitute the exercise of a sufficient degree of care) ; Davies v. Land O'Lakes Racing Assoc; 244 Minn. 248, 69 N.W.2d 642 (1955) (An accident occurred where children were known to play. The court, concluded that where one knowingly maintains something that mayor is certain to attract children or may present a concealed danger in an area where children are more or less likely to trespass, the legal effect may justify a finding of actionable negligence) . NUISANCE A municipality is not liable for the failure to abate a nuisance which it did not create, except after notice and a request to abate is received. McQuillan's Municioal Corporations, ~53.59 (a). Generally, the failure to enact or enforce ordinances for the prevention or abatement of a public nuisance on private property will not render a municipality liable. Id. at ~53.59 (c); See Arnold Y. City of St. Louis, 152 Mo. 173, 53 S.W. 900 (1899) (No liability for a municipality where the pond is on private property because the municipality had no control over private property and was under no duty to abate the nuisance) . In Minnesota, it has been held that a municipality, in an action for a child's death by drowning, was not chargeable with negligence as a matter of law for piling rubbiSh on a path within city streets. Stadherr v. City of Bauk Center, 180 Minn. 496, 231 N.W, 210 (1930). This was the result even though the municipality owned the property where the accident occurred. Private nuisances only produce damages to one or a few persons. 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances S9 (1964). Prevention or abatement of a private nuisance is the responsibility of the injured party and not the municipality. Bill v. StokelY-Van camp. Tnc., 260 Minn. 315, 109 N.W.2d 749 (1961). Public nuisances affect a considerable number of persons. Minn. Stat. S609. 74 (198B). This statute defines a public nuisance as follows, "Whoever by his act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does arty of the following is guilty of maintaining a pUblic nuisance: (1) Maintains or permits a 3 ~lj