sonable care, not only in construction but also in the inspection of walks. It is not liable for every latent defect, but it may be liable for latent defects which proper inspection would have disclosed. The just rule seems to be that whenever a munici pality maintains a sidewalk which it knows, or with due care would know, to be unsafe, it is liable in damages to one suffering injury from the defect.121

Hatchways and Coal Chutes in Walks.

Hatchways and similar entrances from sidewalks to cellars are necessities in urban life, but the city must take care that such things do not become dangerous to pedestrians.122 If basement steps are necessary and permitted in a sidewalk, they must be guarded with suitable railing;123 and the doors or lids of hatchways or coal chutes must be safe and strong, so as to protect pedestrians from danger. For failure to exercise due. care in this respect the municipality may be liable in dam

121 City of Covington v. Johnson, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 602, 69 S. W. 703; Padelford v. Eagle Grove, 117 Iowa, 616, 91 N. W. 899; Buckley v. Kansas City, 156 Mo. 16, 56 S. W. 319; Cowie v. Seattle, 22 Wash. 659, 62 Pac. 121; City of Peoria v. Simpson, 110 Ill. 294, 51 Am. Rep. 683; McConnell v. Osage, 80 Iowa, 293, 45 N. W. 550, 8 L. R. A. 778; Stebbins v. Keene Tp., 55 Mich. 552, 22 N. W. 37; Kellogg v. Janesville, 34 Minn. 132, 24 N. W. 359.

A city cannot be held liable for an injury caused by a latent defect in a sidewalk without actual notice, where the authorities have used all ordinary and reasonable means to discover it. Powell v. Bowen, 92 Ill. App. 453. See City of Rockford v. Hollenbeck, 34 Ill. App. 40; Moon v. Ionia, 81 Mich. 635, 46 N. W. 25; Young v. Kansas City, 45 Mo. App. 600; Jackson v. Pool, 91 Tenn. 448, 19 S. W. 324.

122 Village of Evanston v. Fitzgerald, 37 Ill. App. 86; Niblett v. Nashville, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 684, 27 Am. Rep. 755; Corcoran v. Peekskill, 108 N. Y. 151, 15 N. E. 309; City of Franklin v. Harter, 127 Ind. 446, 26 N. E. 882, Sweeney v. Butte, 15 Mont. 274, 39 Pac. 286; City of Wabasha v. Southworth, 54 Minn. 79, 55 N. W. 818.

123 McGuire v. Spence, 91 N. Y. 303, 43 Am. Rep. 668; Gridley v. Bloomington, 68 Ill. 47; Id., 88 Ill. 554, 30 Am. Rep. 566. But see Beardsley v. Hartford, 50 Conn. 542, 47 Am. Rep. 677.

ages. 124 The municipal duty of reasonable care applies also to things above the sidewalk, such as signboards, poles, and awnings. 125

Ice and Snow.

The presence of ice and snow upon streets and sidewalks has been a fruitful source of litigation in many states, and many diverse rulings have been made, due in large measure to difference of latitude. Generally, it may be said that in this particular, as in others, the municipal duty requires only reasonable care. 126 But what is reasonable in Tallahassee may not be in Kalamazoo. Precautions might be necessary in Oshkosh that would not be necessary in Seattle. Statutes have been passed in the New England States prescribing the measure of municipal duty; but such statutes, of course, are of local application only, and are not enacted in the Southern States. The only rule of general application, therefore, must be that of reasonable care in view of climatic and other conditions.127

124 Johnston v. Charleston, 3 S. C. 232, 16 Am. Rep. 721; Galvin v. New York, 112 N. Y. 223, 19 N. E. 675; Roe v. Kansas City, 100 Mo. 190, 13 S. W. 404. But see Littlefield v. Norwich, 40 Conn. 408; Elliott, Roads & Sts. p. 453.

125 Cason v. Ottumwa, 102 Iowa, 99, 71 N. W. 192; Bohen v. Waseca, 32 Minn. 176, 19 N. W. 730, 50 Am. Rep. 564; Langan v. Atchison, 35 Kan. 318, 11 Pac. 38, 57 Am. Rep. 165; Domer v. District of Columbia, 21 App. D. C. 284.

A municipality is bound to exercise careful supervision of electric wires over its streets, and is liable for injury resulting from neglect of such duty, notwithstanding the liability of the owner. Mooney v. Luzerne, 186 Pa. 161, 40 Atl. 311, 40 L. R. A. 811; Domer v. District of Columbia, 21 App. D. C. 284; Contra, City of Fremont v. Dunlap, 69 Ohio St. 286, 69 N. E. 561.

126 Gaylord v. New Britain, 58 Conn. 398, 20 Atl. 365, 8, L. R. A. 752; Gillrie v. Lockport, 122 N. Y. 403, 25 N. E. 357; Adams v. Chicopee, 147 Mass. 440, 18 N. E. 231; Bell v. York, 31 Neb. 842, 48 N. W. S78; Grossenbach v. Milwaukee, 65 Wis. 31, 26 N. W. 182, 56 Am. Rep. 614; Broburg v. Des Moines, 63 Iowa, 523, 19 N. W. 340, 50 Am. Rep. 756.

127 Paulson v. Pelican, 79 Wis. 445, 48 N. W. 715; Mauch Chunk

BRIDGES AND VIADUCTS.

143. Viaducts and bridges within a municipality are parts of streets, and objects of the same degree of municipal

care.

Unless required by mandatory statute, the construction of a bridge by a municipality is within its discretion; and, the location of a bridge being a governmental function, the municipality is not liable at common law for injury resulting therefrom, save to the extent of appropriating private property to public use under the sovereign power of eminent domain.128 Under constitutional and statutory rules, however, as we have heretofore seen,129 it may be liable as well for property damaged as property taken; and liability has been adjudged in one case upon the ground that the state has no right to undertake improvements in a negligent manner.130 A municipal corporation is not liable for injuries resulting from the negligence or erroneous judgment of its officers or agents in the performance of, or omission to perform, duties which are purely discretionary; 131 such as opening or closing the

v. Kline, 100 Pa. 119, 45 Am. Rep. 364; Olson v. Worcester, 142 Mass. 536, 8 N. E. 441; Cloughessey v. Waterbury, 51 Conn. 405, 50 Am. Rep. 38.

A city is liable for injuries resulting from ice on a sidewalk caused by the packing of snow which had been allowed to remain on the walk several weeks. Beck v. Buffalo, 50 App. Div. 621, 63 N. Y. Supp. 499; Russell v. Toledo, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 418, 10 O.

C. D. 367. See, also, Corey v. Ann Arbor, 124 Mich. 134, 82 N. W. 804; Ransom v. Belvidere, 87 Ill. App. 167.

128 Jones v. Keith, 37 Tex. 399, 14 Am. Rep. 382; Orth v. Milwaukee, 59 Wis. 336, 18 N. W. 10.

129 Ante, 8 112.

130 Hartford County Com'rs v. Wise, 71 Md. 43, 18 Atl. 31.

131 Howsmon v. Water Co., 119 Mo. 304, 24 S. W. 784, 23 L. R. A. 146, 41 Am. St. Rep. 654.

street,182 changing a grade,133 locating a crossing,134 or even suspending a general regulation for the temporary convenience or pleasure of a portion of its people.135

Ministerial Functions.

But after the discretionary function of location has been performed and the municipality enters upon the business of construction, it enters the field of ministerial functions, and may become liable for failure to exercise reasonable care in the process of construction. It has accordingly been held that a corporation may be liable for failure to place proper guards and railings around the bridge approaches during the construction,136 and also on the approaches and bridge itself after it is completed,187 so as to protect persons upon the bridge exercising ordinary care. It must use due care to erect and maintain a reasonably safe structure, 188 and generally is liable for failure to perform, or for negligent performance of. its duty in regard to bridges, under the same rules as are applicable to streets.139 This includes the duty of reasonable

132 Bauman v. Detroit, 58 Mich. 444, 25 N. W. 391.

133 Northern Transp. Co. of Ohio v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. Ed. 336.

134 Smith v. Gould, 61 Wis. 31, 20 N. W. 369.

135 Burford v. Grand Rapids, 53 Mich. 98, 18 N. W. 571, 51 Am. Rep. 105; Hill v. Board, 72 N. C. 55, 21 Am. Rep. 451; Rivers v. Augusta, 65 Ga. 376, 38 Am. Rep. 787.

136 Weirs v. Jones County, 80 Iowa, 351, 45 N. W. 883; Mullen v. Rutland, 55 Vt. 77; Doherty v. Braintree, 148 Mass. 495, 20 N. E. 106.

137 Corbalis v. Newberry Tp., 132 Pa. 9, 19 Atl. 44, 19 Am. St. Rep. 588; Langlois v. Cohoes, 58 Hun, 226, 11 N. Y. Supp. 908; City of Rosedale v. Golding, 55 Kan. 167, 40 Pac. 284.

188 Perkins v. Oxford, 66 Me. 545; Jordan v. Hannibal, 87 Mo. 673.

Where a city, under no obligation to do so, attempts to build approaches to a canal bridge built over the canal by the canal trustees, it is liable for damages caused by their defective condition. City of Joliet v. Verley, 35 Ill. 58, 85 Am. Dec. 342.

139 Village of Marseilles v. Howland, 124 Ill. 547, 16 N. E. SS3; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 728.

inspection and notice of danger, and for failure to exercise these duties municipalities have been held liable for defect in the floor,140 in the railings of a bridge,141 and for failure to close or warn the public of a dangerous bridge.142

DRAINS AND SEWERS.

144. A municipality may also be liable for misfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of its duty to exercise reasonable care in the construction and maintenance of its drains and sewers.

It is well settled that in deciding to build sewers and in choosing a plan the municipality is exercising governmental discretion, and therefore incurs no liability for the negligence or mistakes of its agents; 143 but it is equally well settled by

140 Langlois v. Cohoes, 58 Hun, 226, 11 N. Y. Supp. 908; Strong v. Stevens Point, 62 Wis. 255, 22 N. W. 425; Mayor, etc., of City of Griffin v. Johnson, 84 Ga. 279, 10 S. E. 719; Lee County v. Yarbrough, 85 Ala. 590, 5 South. 341; Lyman v. Hampshire, 140 Mass. 311, 3 N. E. 211.

141 City of Jacksonville v. Drew, 19 Fla. 106, 45 Am. Rep. 5; Woodman v. Nottingham, 49 N. H. 387, 6 Am. Rep. 526.

142 Carney v. Marseilles, 136 Ill. 401, 26 N. E. 491, 29 Am. St. Rep. 328; Albrittin v. Huntsville, 60 Ala. 486, 31 Am. Rep. 46; Humphreys v. Armstrong County, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 49; City of Erie v. Schwingle, 22 Pa. 384, 60 Am. Dec. 87. See, also, Cunliff v. Albany, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 190. But see City of Albany v. Cunliff, 2 N. Y. 165.

143 Betham v. Philadelphia, 196 Pa. 302, 46 Atl. 448; Pressman v. Dickson City, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 236; Burger v. Philadelphia, 196 Pa. 41, 46 Atl. 262; Bealafeld v. Verona, 188 Pa. 627, 41 Atl. 651; King v. Kansas City, 58 Kan. 334, 49 Pac. 88; Champion v. Crandon, 84 Wis. 405, 54 N. W. 775, 19 L. R. A. 856; Cummins v. Seymour, 79 Ind. 491, 41 Am. Rep. 618; Mills v. Brooklyn, 32 N. Y. 489; Perry v. Worcester, 6 Gray (Mass.) 544, 66 Am. Dec. 431; Johnston v. District of Columbia, 118 U. S. 19, 6 Sup. Ct. 923, 30 L. Ed. 75; Child v. Boston, 4 Allen (Mass.) 41, 81 Am. Dec. 680.

Where the municipal authorities have adopted a plan of sewerage, they are not liable for damages resulting from an insufficiency in size

STANFORD LAW LIBRARY