Cited by

6 Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 at 289 (308 at 313).

See, Sternitzke v. Donahue’s Jewelers, 249 Minn. 514 , 83 N. W. (2d) 96 ; Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 258 (300); Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 (308); Russell v. Sincoe Realty Co. 293 Mo.

Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 258 (300) ; Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 (308) ; 4 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

This is a firmly established exception to the rule that a city .is not liable in damages for negligence in the performance of its governmental functions, Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 (308); Bohen v. City of Waseca, 32 Minn. 176 , , 50 Am.

(2d ed.) 420; Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 (308); Noonan v. City of Stillwater, 33 Minn. 198 , , 53 Am.

Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 (308) Berger v. St.

In Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 (308), a verdict of $4,000, awarded a husband for injuries to his wife resulting in a miscarriage, was sustained.

§§ 197-199; Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 (308).

Gilfillan, C. J. In Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 , (308,) it was determined that a municipal corporation, having exclusive control of streets within its limits, at ieast if the means of performing the duty are placed at its disposal, is obliged to keep' them in a safe condition, and is liable for injuries caused by unreasonable neglect of that duty.

Paul v. Seitz, 3 Minn. 205 , (297;) Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 , (308;) Lindholm v. City of St.

Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 , (308;) Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 258 , (300;) Phelps v. City of Mankato, 23 Minn. 276 .

As respects their effect upon the liability of the defendant city, these provisions are substantially the same as those of the charter of the city of Minneapolis, considered in Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 , (308,) and held to confer upon such city the exclusive care and control of its streets, and to provide it with means for that purpose.

Bennett v. Phelps, 12 Minn. 216 , (326;) Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 , (308;) Rollins v. St.

667: “It is a strong presumption that that which never has been done cannot by law be done at all.” Reference is made by counsel to the fact that, as held generally and by this court, (Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284 , (308;) O'Gorman v. Village of Morris, 26 Minn. 267 ; and many other cases,) municipal corporations having special charters, with provisions imposing the care of streets upon them, are liable, in private actions, for disrepair of streets; and it is contended that as by

Nelson vs. Robson, 17 Minn. 284 .