TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gullikson v. McDonald

GULLIK O. GULLIKSON v. ALEXANDER F. McDONALD and Another

Gullikson v. McDonald, 64 N.W. 812 (Minn. 1895)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 24, 1895
Docket
No. 9727-(310)
Judges
Canty
Citations
64 N.W. 81262 Minn. 2781895 Minn. LEXIS 69
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Municipal Corporation — Defective Lockup — Liability for Injuries to Prisoner. Held,, a municipal corporation is not liable for negligently maintaining its lockup or prison in a defective and unfit condition, by reason of which a prisoner confined therein is injured. Same — Wrongful Act of Police Officer. Neither is a municipal corporation liable for the wrongful acts of its police officers, constable, or marshal in making arrests or detaining prisoners.
Summary
Appeal by defendant village of Ada from an order of the district court for Norman county, Ives, J., overruling its demurrer, to the complaint.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Canty

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

CANTY, J.

The defendant, the village of Ada, demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This is an appeal by it from an order overruling the demurrer.

The complaint alleges that said village is, and on January 2(5, 1895, was, a municipal corporation, and prior thereto caused to be erected a village prison or lockup, in which it required persons under arrest to be detained and imprisoned; that said building was open, cold, and wholly unfit to be used as a' lockup in the winter season, or to detain any person in during cold weather; that the defendant McDonald was then the duly appointed, qualified, and acting marshal of said village; that on said day, as said marshal, he arrested the plaintiff, and, against his will, detained and imprisoned him in said lockup all night, without reasonable cause, right, or authority to do so; that said night was very cold, and plaintiff was so kept in the lockup, without fire, for two hours, and the balance of the time, during said night, said lockup was insufficiently heated, by reason of which plaintiff contracted rheumatism, has suffered pain therefrom, and been permanently disabled, to his damage in the sum of $5,000.

We are of the opinion that the complaint states no cause of action against.the defendant village. It is a well-settled rule of law that! municipal corporations are not liable for either negligent omissions J or- commissions in the performance of duties for which they receive j no pecuniary profit, but which are imposed upon them as mere f governmental agencies. Thus, it is held that a city is not liable for the negligence of its servant operating the passenger elevator in its city hall. Snider v. City of St. Paul, 51 Minn. 466 , 53 N. W. 763 . A county is not liable for its negligence in permitting the footwalks used as a means of access to its courthouse to be out of repair. Dosdall v. County of Olmsted, 30 Minn. 96 , 14 N. W. 458 . There is one well-established, but anomalous, exception to this rule; *280 and that is the rule which holds municipal corporations (as distinguished from quasi municipal corporations) liable for permitting their streets and highways to be defective, or out of repair. If this general rule of immunity of municipal corporations from liability is not always good public policy, it is a question for the legislature, land not for the courts. The rule is now too long and too well established for the courts to change it.

That a municipal corporation is not liable for the wrongful acts of its police officers, constable, or marshal, in making arrests or detaining prisoners, is too well settled to require discussion.

The order overruling the demurrer is reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 26 cases

View all citing references →
1896: 11898: 31900: 11903: 11905: 11907: 11908: 11909: 11910: 11911: 11912: 11915: 21919: 11922: 11927: 11929: 11933: 11942: 11948: 11960: 11962: 11963: 11991: 118962026peak 1898 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McCorkell v. City of Northfield123 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. 1963)
  2. Reierson v. City of Minneapolis118 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. 1962)
  3. City of Winona v. Botzet169 F. 321 (8th Cir. 1909)
  4. Emmons v. City of Virginia188 N.W. 561 (Minn. 1922)
  5. Ackeret v. City of Minneapolis151 N.W. 976 (Minn. 1915)
  6. Roerig v. Houghton175 N.W. 542 (Minn. 1919)

Most recent

  1. Invest Cast, Inc. v. City of Blaine471 N.W.2d 368 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)
  2. McCorkell v. City of Northfield123 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. 1963)
  3. Reierson v. City of Minneapolis118 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. 1962)
  4. O'Connor v. City of Minneapolis182 F. Supp. 494 (D. Minnesota 1960)
  5. Hitchcock v. County of Sherburne34 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 1948)
  6. Archer v. City of Austell23 S.E.2d 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Snider v. City of St. Paul, 18 L.R.A. 151 (Minn. 1892) 41
Dosdall v. Cnty. of Olmsted, 14 N.W. 458 (Minn. 1882) 30

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list