Volume 283 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Municipal corporations — tort liability — injury caused by</bold> <bold>icy sidewalk — applicability of statutory exemption</bold>. <block_quote> The term "highway," as used in Minn. St. <cross_reference>466.03</cross_reference>, subd. 4, of the so-called Municipal Tort Liability Act, refers to streets and public places used for vehicular traffic and does not include municipal sidewalks.</block_quote>

<bold>Drainage — improvement of drainage system — finding of public</bold> <bold>benefit — evidentiary basis</bold>. <block_quote> 1. The determination of the district court that a proposed improvement of a judicially established drainage system is of public benefit and utility is not without evidentiary support.</block_quote> <bold>Same — appeal — scope of review — determination of benefits</bold> <bold>and damages</bold>. <block_quote> 2. The viewers' determinations of benefits and damages to lands within the drainage system are not reviewable in this court without submission of those issues of fact to the reconsideration of a jury in district court, notwithstanding the claim that errors in viewers' determinations were demonstrably extensive and systematic.</block_quote> <bold>Same — viewers' reports — failure to list benefits and</bold> <bold>damages separately — effect</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Viewers are ordinarily required to list benefits and damages separately in their reports. Under the circumstances in this case, however, the failure of the viewers to do so in all situations was seemingly without prejudice to appellants and, in any event, was not so dispositive of the case as to make it appealable without prior submission for the jury's determination under the statute.</block_quote>

<bold>Fraud — representations about future business prospects —</bold> <bold>actionability</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Asserted false representations attributed to sellers of motel, which representations as disclosed by the record related to future business prospects, amounted to nothing more than conjectures of future events and did not constitute actionable fraud.</block_quote> <bold>Unjust enrichment — basis of theory — availability to one who</bold> <bold>abandons contract</bold>. <block_quote> 2. The theory of unjust enrichment or money had and received is invoked to support claims based upon failure of consideration, fraud, mistake, and other situations where it would be morally wrong for one to enrich himself at the expense of another. As applied to the facts set forth herein, it may not be invoked to aid one who voluntarily abandons a contract, the consequences of such abandonment having been reasonably foreseeable when the contractual obligations were assumed.</block_quote>

<bold>New trial — grounds — inadequate damages</bold>. <block_quote> The trial court did not err in denying a motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury verdict was insufficient where the evidence would support a determination that most of the injuries claimed to have been sustained by plaintiffs were not attributable to defendant's negligent acts but were the result of preexisting physical infirmities.</block_quote>

<bold>Ordinances — special-use-permit ordinances — power of</bold> <bold>municipality to enact</bold>. <block_quote> 1. The power of municipalities to enact special-use-permit ordinances is implicit in the provisions of Minn. St. <cross_reference>462.357</cross_reference>.</block_quote> <bold>Zoning — issuance of special-use permit — effect — denial of</bold> <bold>application — propriety</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Under an ordinance which permits the construction of a gasoline service station in a commercial district upon obtaining a special-use permit from the city council, the trial court's finding that the denial of plaintiff's application for such permit was arbitrary must be affirmed where the city council at the time of the denial made no findings of fact and gave no reasons for its decision, and where the evidence submitted upon trial does not establish as a matter of law that the service station, if located at the proposed site, would endanger the public health or safety or general welfare of the area affected or the community as a whole.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Since, under the city's comprehensive zoning ordinance, a gasoline service station is a use specifically permitted within a commercial district if a special-use permit is obtained, the issuance of such a permit to construct a gasoline station in a commercial district does not amount to a rezoning.</block_quote>

<bold>Landlord and tenant — multiple dwelling — duty of landlord to</bold> <bold>light areas used in common</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Generally, in the absence of a specific statute or controlling contract provision, a landlord has no duty to his tenant to light areas used in common by the lessees of a multiple dwelling.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Although exception is made to this rule where (a) the landlord has assumed the duty to light the area, or (b) where the premises involved are constructed or maintained in a way so hazardous as to necessitate light, the facts of this case do not bring it within these exceptions.</block_quote><page_number>Page 224</page_number>

<bold>Criminal law — conviction upon plea of guilty — showing</bold> <bold>required for vacation</bold>. <block_quote> 1. A person convicted of a felony upon his plea of guilty is held not to have established that a manifest injustice will result from failure to vacate the conviction and plea.</block_quote> <bold>Same — sentencing — failure to afford right of allocution —</bold> <bold>effect</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Failure of sentencing court to afford a defendant an opportunity to speak in his own behalf held not to nullify a sentence imposed after conviction of burglary where record shows court had the benefit of a presentence report and the sentence given reflects proper representation by counsel of defendant's choice who was present when sentence was imposed.</block_quote> <bold>Same — sentence — revocation of stay — notice and hearing</bold> <bold>requirements — effect of noncompliance</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Minn. St. <cross_reference>609.14</cross_reference> requires that a person taken into custody<page_number>Page 240</page_number> upon issuance of an order revoking a stay of execution of a sentence should be given notice of the grounds for revocation. If the grounds for revocation are put in issue by the defendant, a summary hearing is required. The failure to comply with these requirements of the statute is held to be without prejudice in this case where (a) the sentence has been served, (b) the grounds for revocation were apparent and indisputable, and (c) no complaint was made on this ground in prior proceedings to vacate the conviction.</block_quote>

<bold>Divorce — custody of children — award to father</bold>. <block_quote> It was not an abuse of discretion to award custody of minor children to their father where the mother was pregnant by an adulterous relationship, was planning to leave the jurisdiction with the children,<page_number>Page 256</page_number> and had not yet established a new home or consummated her marriage with the father of the unborn child.</block_quote>

<bold>Workmen's compensation — occupational disease — apportionment</bold> <bold>of compensation liability — meaning of "contracted."</bold> <block_quote> The word "contracted" as used in Minn. St. <cross_reference>176.66</cross_reference>, subd. 5, providing for apportionment in cases of occupational disease, refers to and means the time when an occupational disease manifests itself so as to interfere with bodily functions to such an extent that the employee suffering from the occupational disease can no longer substantially perform the duties of his employment.</block_quote>

<bold>Eminent domain — damages — refusal to set off special</bold> <bold>benefits</bold>. <block_quote> This court has previously established that where property is taken under the power of eminent domain, special benefits shall not be set off against an award of damages where the cost of improvements will be paid for by special assessments. We reaffirm and follow that rule in the instant case. It is our present view that the decision entered by the trial court herein will not in any way prejudice the right of petitioner-appellant to later recover by special assessment the cost of the improvements known as 39th Street.</block_quote><page_number>Page 310</page_number>

<bold>Appeal and error — certified question — scope of review</bold>. <block_quote> 1. When an appeal is allowed from an otherwise nonappealable order through certification of a question as important and doubtful pursuant to Minn. St. <cross_reference>605.09</cross_reference>(i) and Rule 103.03(i), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, review by this court is limited to that certified question. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the purpose of certification.</block_quote> <bold>Conflict of laws — workmen's compensation claim — injury</bold> <bold>occurring in another state — assumption of jurisdiction by</bold> <bold>state of employee's residence</bold>. <block_quote> 2. The assumption of jurisdiction by, and the award of, the State of Oklahoma did not infringe the due process and full faith and credit clauses of the Federal Constitution. Where the contract is entered into within the state, even though it is to be performed elsewhere, its terms, its obligations, and its sanctions are subject in some measure to the legislative control of the state. The fact that the contract is to be performed elsewhere does not itself put these incidents beyond reach of the power which a state may constitutionally exercise. The power of a state to effect legal consequences is not limited to occurrences within the state if it has control over the status which gives rise to those consequences.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Under the "center of gravity" or the "legitimate interest" rule, established in Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Acc. Comm. <cross_reference>294 U.S. 532</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>55 S.Ct. 518</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>79 L. ed. 1044</cross_reference>, it is only reasonable to assume that Oklahoma had a legitimate public interest in controlling and regulating the employer-employee relationship in the case at bar in such fashion as to impose liability upon the employer for an injury suffered by the employee and in providing a remedy available to him in Oklahoma. Thus, in the special circumstances disclosed, the State of Oklahoma had as great an interest in affording adequate protection to this class of its population as it had to employees injured within the state. Therefore, indulging the presumption of constitutionality which attaches to every state statute, we cannot say that this one, as applied<page_number>Page 361</page_number> lacks a rational basis or involved any arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of state power.</block_quote> <bold>Contracts — employment contract — place of making</bold>. <block_quote> 4. The only issue of consequence in the case at bar is whether, at the time of plaintiff's injuries in Montana, he was working pursuant to an employment contract made in Oklahoma. We adopt the rule, recently adopted by the California court upon similar facts, that an oral contract consummated over the telephone is deemed made where the offeree utters the words of acceptance.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — postconviction relief — denial — propriety</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — postconviction proceedings — refusal to vacate</bold> <bold>guilty plea — propriety</bold>. <block_quote> Upon appeal from an order of the district court denying relief in postconviction proceedings, it is held that the determination of the trial court that a plea of guilty was interposed voluntarily is sustained by the evidence.</block_quote>

<bold>Appeal and error — nonappealable order — order for judgment</bold>.

<bold>Highway traffic regulation — revocation of driver's license</bold> <bold>for speeding — when driver is acting under chauffeur's</bold> <bold>license</bold>.

<bold>Workmen's compensation — review — denial of compensation —</bold> <bold>work-related injury not causing subsequent disability</bold>.

<bold>Fraud — representations inducing making of lease —</bold> <bold>actionability</bold>.

<bold>Criminal law — postconviction hearing — refusal to vacate</bold> <bold>guilty plea — propriety</bold>.