The duty imposed on municipal corpora tions of keeping highways safe and conven ient includes obstructions from ice and snow; Green v. Danby, 12 Vt. 338 ; Loker v. Brook line, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 343 ; Providence v. Clapp, 17 How. (U. S.) 161, 15 L. Ed. 72, where It was held that it was for the jury to say whether treading down and not removing the snow was a safe and convenient method of removing the obstruction.
Ice formed by melting snow and ice fall ing from a building simply as the result of natural laws, have been held not a defect for which the municipality is liable ; Hausmann v. Madison, 85 Wis. 187, 55 N. W. 167, 21 L.
R. A. 263, 39 Am. St. Rep. 834. There must be a breach of duty on the part of the city, such as an unusual or dangerous obstruction to travel from snow and ice, and such time must have elapsed after the creation of the obstruction as to afford a presumption of knowledge ; Harrington v. Buffalo, 121 N. Y. 147, 24 N. E. 186. The duty of removing such obstructions is a qualified one, becoming im perative only under the circumstances men tioned ; Hunt v. New York, 109 N. Y. 134, 16 N. E. 320. Where, however, there is by stat ute an absolute liability for injuries result ing from a defective sidewalk, no question of want of notice or the exercise of care is a defence ; Chapman v. Milton, 31 W. Va. 384, 7 S. E. 22. The remedy for an injury result ing from a defective, sidewalk is exclusively against the city, and its liability cannot be avoided by the existence of any ordinance on the subject ; Taylor v. Yonkers, 105 N. Y. 202, 11 N. E. 642, 59 Am. Rep. 492; Kirby v. Market Ass'n, 14 Gray (Mass.) 249, 74 Am. Dec. 682. But if a property owner negli gently maintains a pipe from the roof of a building so as to discharge water upon the sidewalk, by which ice is accumulated there on, this will render the property owner liable for injury to pedestrians caused thereby ; Tremblay v. Harmony Mills, 171 N. Y. 598, 64 N. E. 501.
Depressions In a sidewalk, into which wa ter flows from adjoining property and freezes into uneven surfaces, may constitute a de fect, for injury by which the municipality may be liable ; Upham v. Salem, 162 Mass.
483, 39 N. E. 178 ; or the cutting of a ditch through ice and snow across a sidewalk for the purpose of conveying water into a gutter ; Hall v. Manchester, 40 N. H. 410. A ridge of ice caused by water flowing from a pipe leading from a house near the edge of the walk is such defect ; Dean v. New Castle, 201 Pa. 51, 50 Atl. 310 ; Brown v. White, 202 Pa. 297, 51 Atl. 962, 58 L. R. A. 321.
Unguarded holes, pits, or excavations are obstructions ; Baltimore v. Holmes, 39 Md. 243; Muncy v. Sevier, 124 Mo. App. 10, 101 S. W. 157; Purcell v. Chicago, 231 III. 164, 83 N. E.137. Not everything which endangers the safety of highway travel renders a high way defective and out of repair ; Hewison v. New Haven, 34 Conn. 136, 91 Am. Dec. 718.
The right of action arises solely from negli gence ; Michigan City v. Boeckling, 122 Ind. 39, 23N. E. 518 ; the fact that an accident occurs Is not sufficient, there must be a neglect of duty ; Winne v. Albany, 61 Hun (N. Y.) 620, 15 N. Y. Supp. 423. In order to hold the city liable for negligence in permitting an obstruc tion, it must have notice, but this may be constructive through the elapse of sufficient time for the presumption of notice to arise ; 27 Can. 545 ; 'Blakeley v. Troy, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 167. • Where an awning over the sidewalk was permitted to remain in an unsafe condition by the accumulation of snow and ice, the city was held liable for injuries sustained by the fall of the awning; Drake v. Lowell, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 292 ; but where an accident was occasioned by ice formed by water drip ping from the awning, it was held that the city was not liable and the action should have been against the owner ) Hanson v. Warren, 22 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 133.
ObstruCtions above ground may interfere as much with the safe use of a sidewalk as those on the surface ; Grove v. Ft. Wayne, 45 Ind. 429, 15 Am. Rep. 262 ; Bohen v. Waseca, 32 Minn. 176, 19 N. W. 730, 50 Am. Rep. 564; Bieling v. Brooklyn, 120 N. Y. 98, 24 N. E. 389 (awnings); Leary v. Yonkers, 95 App. Div. 126, 88 N. Y. Supp. 829 (signs) ; West v. Lynn, 110 Mass. 514 (transparencies); Bliven v. Sioux City, 85 Ia: 346, 52 N. W. 246 (a bill board).