Grube v. City of St. Paul
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1989, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dahlheimer v. City of Dayton (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
- Mokovich v. Independent School District No. 22 (Minn. 1929)
- Mokovich v. Independent School District No. 22 (Minn. 1929)
- Howard v. City of Stillwater (Minn. 1927)
- Moulton v. City of Fargo (N.D. 1917)
- Hillstrom v. City of St. Paul (Minn. 1916)
- Ackeret v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1915)
- Island Transp. Co. v. City of Seattle (District Court, W.D. Washington 1913)
- Erickson v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1912)
- Brown v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1907)
- Cunningham v. City of Seattle (Wash. 1906)
- McFadden v. Incorporated Town of Jewell (Iowa 1903)
- Miller v. City of Minneapolis (Minn. 1898)
- Mayor of New York v. Workman (2d Cir. 1895)
- Snider v. City of St. Paul (Minn. 1892)
- Frederick v. City of Columbus (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division 1895)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This case must follow the decision in Bryant v. City of St. Paul, 38 Minn. 289, in which it was held that the duties of a board of health of a city, established, and its duties prescribed, by an act of the legislature, are not municipal or corporate duties, but are governmental or police functions, and that in the performance of such duties the officers of the board are not servants or agents of the city, within the rule respondeat superior.
There is no distinction in the character, in this respect, of the duties of a board of health and a fire department of a city, provided for, and its powers and duties defined, by act of the legislature. The authorities are practically uniform to the effect that the service required of such a fire department is a public service for the general welfare of the public, and not a municipal or corporate duty, and that, in the absence of a statute imposing such liability on the city, it is not liable for the acts or misconduct of the department. Hafford v. City of New Bedford, 16 Gray, 297; Jewett v. City of New Haven, 38 Conn. 368; Fisher v. Boston, 104 Mass. 87; Howard v. San Francisco, 51 Cal. 52; Wilcox v. City of Chicago, 107 Ill. 334; Heller v. Sedalia, 53 Mo. 159; Smith v. City of Rochester, 76 N. Y. 506; Hayes v. City of Oshkosh, 33 Wis. 314; Wheeler v. City of Cincinnati, 19 Ohio St. 19. The defendant is not liable for the negligent act complained of.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.