Cited by

Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530, 531-32 , 44 N.W.

In Doyle , the court explained that the first application of the “mere slipperiness” *394 rule in Minnesota occurred in Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , 44 N.W.

The first application in Minnesota of a common law rule already well established in other jurisdictions appears in Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , 44 N.W.

Teske v. Steele County, 284 Minn. 559 , Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , 44 N.W.

And since a municipality is not required to guard against mere slipperiness caused by a natural flow of water from melted ice and snow, Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , , it follows that the actual or constructive notice must be of hazards due to slippery ice made more dangerous by reason of a rough or uneven surface.

Paul, 193 Minn. 487 , ; Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , .

Although a city is not liable generally for injuries sustained because of mere slipperiness of its sidewalks, Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , , liability may arise if the municipality allows ice and snow to accumulate on a sidewalk or crosswalk for such a length of time as to cause the formation *136 thereon of slippery and dangerous ridges, depressions, hummocks, and irregularities.” Therefore, as a requisite to liability on the part of def

Although a city is not liable generally for injuries sustained because of mere slipperiness of its sidewalks, Henkes v. City of Minneapolis; 42 Minn. 530 , , liability may arise if the municipality *486 allows ice and snow to accumulate on a sidewalk or crosswalk for such a length of time as to cause the formation thereon of slippery and dangerous ridges, depressions, hummocks, and irregularities.

Co. 34 Minn. 57 , ; Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , .

In other words, defendant seeks to bring the instant case within the rule of Henkes v. City of Minne *582 apolis, 42 Minn. 530, 531 , , wherein the court said: “* * * An unbroken line of authorities holds that mere slipperiness of a sidewalk by either ice or snow is not a defect for which cities are liable; that their obligation to keep their streets in a safe-condition does not extend to the removal of ice which constitut

Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530, 531 , .

Although a city is not liable generally for injuries sustained because of mere slipperiness of its streets, Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , , liability may arise if the municipality allows ice and snow to accuinulate on a sidewalk or crossivalk for such a length of time as to cause the formation thereon of slippery and dangerous ridges, depressions, hummocks, and irregularities of the surface.

Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , 531 , 44 N.W.

The pleader’s purpose was to bring the case within such cases as Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , ; Wright v. City of St.

cident and the testimony of the assistant city attorney, who examined the sidewalk at that time, demonstrate to a reasonable certainty that there were no ridges of ice or snow on the sidewalk; that the snow which covered the walk had been tramped down evenly, leaving no depressions or elevations of any consequence; and that the case falls within the rule approved in Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , , that mere slipperiness of a sidewalk caused by ice or snow is not a defect for whic

Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , ; Smith v. City of Cloquet, 120 Minn. 50, 51 , ; Genereau v. City of Duluth, 131 Minn. 92 , ; Rasmussen v. City of Duluth, 133 Minn. 134 , ; Nichols v. Village of Buhl, 152 Minn. 494 , .

Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , .

The court correctly instructed the jury that, if the fall resulted solely from slipperiness caused by the ice and snow, the city was not liable (Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , ; Genereau v. City of Duluth, supra); and further instructed them that the city was liable only in case it was negligent in constructing and maintaining the projecting manhole with sloping sides, and plaintiff’s fall “was caused by *136 those sloping sides.” The evidence is sufficient to sustain the ve

In so doing we do not trench upon the rule announced in Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , , where it was held that the duty of a city in respect to care of its sidewalks did “not extend to the removal of ice which constitutes no other defect than slipperiness, there being no such accumulation of ice as to constitute an obstruction to travel, and no ridges or inequalities of such height, or

Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , ; Wright v. City of St.

The question is not disposed of in Henkes v. City, 42 Minn. 530 , , as contended by counsel for the municipality, for there the defendant city was not responsible for the formation and presence of the ice upon the sidewalk.

It is claimed by counsel for appellant that the language used in Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , , and Wright v. City of St.

This is implied, if not decided, in Henkes v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 530 , ( 44 N. W. Rep.