17-567 Highways, streets, bridges; maintenance and control.
17-567. Highways, streets, bridges; maintenance and control.(1) The city council or board of trustees shall have the care, supervision, and control of all public highways, bridges, streets, alleys, public squares, and commons within the city or village, and shall cause the same to be kept open and in repair, and free from nuisances.(2) All public bridges exceeding sixty feet in length, over any stream crossing a state or county highway, shall be constructed and kept in repair by the county; Provided, when any city or village has constructed a bridge over sixty feet span, on any county or state highway within the corporate limits, and has incurred a debt for the same, the treasurer of the county in which such bridge is located shall pay to the treasurer of the city or village seventy-five percent of all bridge taxes collected in the city or village until such debt, and interest thereon, is fully paid.(3) The council or trustees may appropriate a sum not exceeding five dollars per linear foot to aid in the construction of any county bridge within the limits of such city, or may appropriate a like sum to aid in the construction of any bridge contiguous to the city or village, on a highway leading to the same, or any bridge across any unnavigable river which divides the county, in which the city or village is located, from another state.(4) No street or alley which shall hereafter be dedicated to public use, by the proprietor of ground in any city or village, shall be deemed a public street or alley, or be under the use or control of the city council or board of trustees, unless the dedication shall be accepted and confirmed by an ordinance especially passed for such purpose. SourceLaws 1879, § 77, p. 221; R.S.1913, § 5141; C.S.1922, § 4316; C.S.1929, § 17-507; R.S.1943, § 17-567; Laws 1957, c. 30, § 2, p. 190; Laws 1959, c. 49, § 2, p. 238; Laws 1982, LB 909, § 6.Annotations1. Duty imposed2. Liability for neglect of duty3. Regulation4. Miscellaneous1. Duty imposedA village has right, under police power, to control a lateral irrigation ditch maintained through one of its streets. Thornton v. Kingrey, 100 Neb. 525, 160 N.W. 871 (1916), affirmed on rehearing, 101 Neb. 631, 164 N.W. 561 (1917).Municipality is not required to keep its streets in an absolutely safe condition for public use, but it must use reasonable diligence to keep them in a reasonably safe condition. Walters v. Village of Exeter, 87 Neb. 125, 126 N.W. 868 (1910).City council or board of trustees have the right to sell and dispose of streets and apply the money derived to legitimate municipal purposes. Krueger v. Jenkins, 59 Neb. 641, 81 N.W. 844 (1900).Where snow has caused obstruction on the sidewalks, it is the duty of the city within a reasonable time thereafter to remove such obstruction. Foxworthy v. City of Hastings, 25 Neb. 133, 41 N.W. 132 (1888).City is required to keep streets in repair and in a cleanly condition. Nebraska City v. Rathbone, 20 Neb. 288, 29 N.W. 920 (1886).It is the duty of a municipality to protect its streets and alleys from unlawful occupancy and, in the discharge of this duty, it may maintain an action to test the legality of such occupancy. Ray v. Colby and Tenney, 5 Neb. Unof. 151, 97 N.W. 591 (1903).2. Liability for neglect of dutyIn an action for injuries from a defective sidewalk within city limits, a municipality could not escape liability by showing that the sidewalk was on the outskirts of the city. O'Loughlin v. City of Pawnee City, 88 Neb. 244, 129 N.W. 271 (1911).Cities cannot delegate care and construction of sidewalks and streets and thus escape liability to persons injured by defects therein. Severa v. Village of Battle Creek, 88 Neb. 127, 129 N.W. 186 (1910).Where suit is brought against city to recover damages for personal injuries, trial court may take judicial notice of the class of cities to which defendant belongs and the laws by which it is governed. Olmstead v. City of Red Cloud, 86 Neb. 528, 125 N.W. 1101 (1910).City is liable for injuries caused by defective improvements in streets whether made by city or independent contractor. Armstrong v. City of Auburn, 84 Neb. 842, 122 N.W. 43 (1909).City has exclusive control of streets and ample means to maintain them in a safe condition, and is liable for its failure so to do. Goodrich v. University Place, 80 Neb. 774, 115 N.W. 538 (1908).City is not liable for defective crossing or walk from private property into street. City of McCook v. Parsons, 77 Neb. 132, 108 N.W. 167 (1906).Where dedication of a plat is not accepted by ordinance, the streets and alleys of such plat are not under the control of the city, and the city is not liable for accidents in a street not so accepted. Village of Imperial v. Wright, 34 Neb. 732, 52 N.W. 374 (1892).Until village or city by ordinance accepted and confirmed the dedication, such village or city will not be liable for accidents caused by its negligence in such streets. An ordinance requiring a railroad flagman or a signal at railroad crossings is applicable only to streets duly accepted by the municipality. Steward v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 284 F. 716 (8th Cir. 1922).3. RegulationThe city is authorized to regulate or prohibit parking on its streets. There is no requirement that such prohibitions be made by ordinance. Morrow v. City of Ogallala, 213 Neb. 414, 329 N.W.2d 351 (1983).Use of street for private garage purposes was a nuisance. Michelsen v. Dwyer, 158 Neb. 427, 63 N.W.2d 513 (1954).Cities of the second class have power to enact ordinances that punish operation of motor vehicles by an intoxicated person on public street. Gembler v. City of Seward, 136 Neb. 196, 285 N.W. 542 (1939), modified on rehearing 136 Neb. 916, 288 N.W. 545 (1939).Exhibition of a stallion on a street may be declared a nuisance. State v. Iams, 78 Neb. 678, 111 N.W. 604 (1907).Unauthorized use of streets and alleys of municipal corporation constitutes public nuisance. Nebraska Tel. Co. v. Western Ind. Long Distance Tel. Co., 68 Neb. 772, 95 N.W. 18 (1903).4. MiscellaneousCity may accept plat of an addition by using the area platted for streets and alleys. City of Ord v. Zlomke, 181 Neb. 573, 149 N.W.2d 747 (1967).City has no power to pave and levy a special assessment to pay the cost of a public highway, though it is within the corporate limits, unless such highway is formally or impliedly dedicated to and accepted by the city. City of McCook v. Red Willow County, 133 Neb. 380, 275 N.W. 396 (1937).Where property owner has permitted city to use street adjacent to his property for pump house and well for over forty years without objection, courts will refuse to enjoin city. Barger v. City of Tekamah, 128 Neb. 805, 260 N.W. 366 (1935).Where street was closed by ordinance giving railroad company right to erect depot therein, and permanent improvements were thereafter made in street, mandamus will not lie to compel opening of street. State ex rel. Cox v. McIlravy, 105 Neb. 651, 181 N.W. 554 (1921).Municipality under a duly acknowledged and recorded plat has such ownership in streets, alleys, etc., that an abutting owner cannot recover the value of the natural products grown thereon. Carroll v. Village of Elmwood, 88 Neb. 352, 129 N.W. 537 (1911)."Bridge", as used in this section, does not include the approaches thereto. City of Central City v. Marquis, 75 Neb. 233, 106 N.W. 221 (1905).Bonds may be issued by city to build bridge beyond city limits. State ex rel. City of Columbus v. Babcock, 23 Neb. 179, 36 N.W. 474 (1888).