or in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance does not ordinarily give rise to a liability where injuries are received from this cause. The use of a street for coasting is a familiar illustration of the last proposition.271 § 1014. Side and cross walks. Side and cross walks are uniformly regarded as a part of the highway and the same duty can be enforced in respect to their condition and construction.272 As already noted in the previous 306; City of Atchison v. Acheson, 9 Kan. App. 33, 57 Pac. 248; Cratty v. City of Bangor, 57 Me. 423. Under the laws of Maine, a person driving on Sunday unless absolutely necessary, on a defective highway, cannot recover for injuries sustained. Sheehan v. City of Boston, 171 Mass. 296, 50 N. E. 543; Sharp v. Evergreen Tp., 67 Mich. 443, 35 N. W. 67. That plaintiff was driving on Sunday no defense. But see City of Pueblo v. Smith, 3 Colo. App. 386, 33 Pac. 685; O'Neil v. Town of East Windsor, 63 Conn. 150, 27 Atl. 237; McVoy v. City of Knoxville, 85 Tenn. 19, 1 S. W. 498. 271 Faulkner v. City of Aurora, 85 Ind. 130; City of Lafayette v. Timberlake, 88 Ind. 330; Steele v. City of Boston, 128 Mass. 583; Pierce v. City of New Bedford, 129 Mass. 534; Ray v. City of Manchester, 46 N. H. 59; Hutchinson v. Town of Concord, 41 Vt. 271. 272 Village of Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660; Delger v. City of St. Paul, 14 Fed. 567; Osborne v. City of Detroit, 32 Fed. 36; City of Birmingham v. Starr, 112 Ala. 98, 20 So. 424; Bonnet v. City & County of San Francisco, 65 Cal. 230; Cusick v. City of Norwich, 40 Conn. 375; City of Wilmington v. Ewing, 2 Pen. (Del.) 66, 43 Atl. 305, 45 L. R. A. 79. Municipal liability may be limited by legislative act. Giffin v. Lewiston, 6 Idaho, 231, 55 Pac. 545; McLean v. Lewiston, 8 Idaho, 472, 69 Pac. 478; Dooley v. Town of Sullivan, 112 Ind. 451, 14 N. E. 566; Village of Mansfield v. Moore, 124 Ill. 133, 16 N. E. 246; Village of Sciota v. Norton, 63 Ill. App. 530; City of Chicago v. Baker, 95 Ill. App. 413. A city is liable for its neglect to keep a sidewalk in a proper repair though it is in fact on private property when it invites the public to use it as though it belonged to the city. Higbert v. City of Greencastle, 43 Ind. 574; Town of Kentland v. Hagan, 17 Ind. App. 1, 46 N. E. 43; Graham v. Town of Oxford, 105 Iowa, 705, 75 N. W. 473; Parmenter v. City of Marion, 113 Iowa, 297, 85 N. W. 90; City of Wichita v. Coggsshall, 3 Kan. App. 540, 43 Pac. 842. The number of miles of sidewalk in a city is immaterial in determining the question of whether the walk where the injury was received was in a reasonably safe condition. Aucoin v. City of New Orleans, 105 La. 271, 29 So. 502; Weare v. Inhabitants of Fitchburg, 110 Mass. 334; Frary v. Allen Tp., 91 Mich. 666, 52 N. W. 78; Burridge v. City of Detroit, 117 Mich. 557, 76 N. W. sections, some classes of public corporations are exempt by statute or common law from any obligation whatever in these respectssome have special duties imposed by statute, while municipal corporations have usually imposed upon them either by common law or statutory regulation the largest measure of duty with its resulting liability. The obligation, if one exists, is controlled by all of the considerations suggested in sections 950 et seq.,-which it is unnecessary here to repeat. It is deemed advisable however, to again call attention to the well established principle of law that a public corporation whether municipal or quasi, is never regarded as an insurer of the safety of a person. The only duty is to keep the highways, including as an integral part side and cross walks, in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel by those using them for a proper purpose and, therefore, entitled to the privilege.273 This duty is a varying one and depends upon 84, 42 L. R. A. 684; Saunders v. Gun Plains Tp., 76 Mich. 182, 142 N. W. 1088; Fuller v. City of Jack. son, 92 Mich. 197, 52 N. W. 1075; Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 300 (Gil. 258); Furnell v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn. 117 (Gil. 101); Kellogg v. Village of Janesville, 34 Minn. 132; Young v. Village of Waterville, 39 Minn. 196, 39 N. W. 97; Downend v. Kansas City, 156 Mo. 60, 56 S. W. 902, 51 L. R. A. 170; City of Omaha v. Olmstead, 5 Neb. 446; City of Lincoln v. Calvert, 39 Neb. 305; City of Lincoln v. Smith, 28 Neb. 762, 45 N. W. 41. The number of miles of sidewalk does not lessen the duty of a city to keep its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for travel. Hall v. City of Manchester, 40 N. H. 410; Dupuy v. Union Tp., 46 N. J. Law, 269. In the absence of a statute imposing the liability, none exists for injuries caused by a defective sidewalk. Kirk v. Village of Homer, 77 Hun, 459, 28 N. Y. Supp. 1009; McMahon v. City of New York, 33 N. Y. Supp. 642; Birngruber v. Town of Eastchester, 54 App. Div. 80, 66 N. Y. Supp. 278; McSherry v. Village of Canandaigua, 129 N. Y. 612, 29 N. E. 821; Neal v. Town of Marion, 129 N. C. 345, 40 S. E. 116; Miller v. City of Bradford, 186 Pa. 164, 40 Atl. 409; Poole v. City of Jackson, 93 Tenn. 62; City of Sherman v. Williams, 77 Tex. 310, 14 S. W. 130; City of Belton v. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 831; Baugus v. City of Atlanta, 74 Tex. 629, 12 S. W. 750; Gordon v. City of Richmond, 83 Va. 436, 2 S. E. 727; Hutchinson v. City of Olympia, 2 Wash. T. 314; Clark v. Lincoln County, 1 Wash. St. 518, 20 Pac. 576. A county is not liable for injuries caused by a defective sidewalk under its control. Chapman v. Milton, 31 W. Va. 384, 7 S. E. 22; Byington v. City of Merrill, 112 Wis. 211, 88 N. W. 26. The liability of municipalities for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks is wholly the result of statutory provisions. 273 Enright v. City of Atlanta, 78 Ga. 288; City of Sandwich v. Dolan, many considerations suggested in other sections, and is in all cases predicated upon negligence which is usually regarded as a question of fact for a jury under reasonable control of the court.274 § 1015. Duty; how modified. The obligation in respect to side and cross walks is changed through the fact that they are used by foot passengers.275 The duty by reason of this condition is measurably increased because of the increased danger from use by such travel and legally to be guarded against. Conditions either in plan, construction or maintenance regarded as defects in side and cross walks would not be so considered if found in that portion of the highway set aside for travel by other means of locomotion.2 276 (a) Width to be kept in repair. It was said in a previous section 277 that the duty to keep an ordinary highway in repair applied only to that portion used or likely to be used, ordinarily, as a traveled way. This rule does not apply to side and cross walks; the duty must be performed in respect to them in their entire length and width.278 If a city or town invites the public to use a 141 Ill. 430, 31 N. E. 416; City of Centralia v. Krouse, 64 l. 19; City of Chicago v. Scholten, 75 Ill. 468; Lindsay v. City of Des Moines, 74 lowa, 111, 37 N. W. 9; Hall v. Town of Manson, 90 Iowa, 585, 58 N. W. 881; City of Atchison v. Jansen, 21 Kan. 560; City of Covington v. Manwaring, 24 Ky. L. R. 423, 68 S. W. 625; City of Covington v. Asman, 24 Ky. L. R. 415, 68 S. W. 646; Brummett v. City of Boston, 179 Mass. 26, 60 N. E. 388; Shietart v. City of Detroit, 108 Mich. 309, 66 N. W. 221. The mere failure to construct the sidewalk, however, will not create a liability. Phalen v. City of Detroit, 126 Mich. 683, 86 N. W. 126; Wallis v. City of Westport, 82 Mo. App. 522; City of Ord v. Nash, 50 Neb. 335, 69 N. W. 964. Sidewalks must be kept in a reasonably safe condition for travel by night as well as day. Anderson v. Albion, 64 Neb. 280, 89 N. W. 794; Lohr v. Borough of Phillipsburg, 156 Pa. 246, 27 Atl. 133; Poole v. City of Jackson, 93 Tenn. 62, 23 S.W. 57; Peake v. City of Superior, 106 Wis. 403, 82 N. W. 306. 274 Young v. Kansas City, 45 Mo. App. 600. See §§ 1042, 1057, and 1066 post, and § 992, ante. 275 Brooks v. Schwerin, 54 N. Y. 343. Foot passengers and others have equal rights in the streets of a city. 5 Thompson, Neg. § 6155. 276 Shippy v. Village of Au Sable, 65 Mich. 494, 32 N. W. 741. The rule stated in respect to use of sidewalks by children. Moore v. City of Kalamazoo, 109 Mich. 176, 66 N. W. 1089; Bieber v. City of St. Paul, 87 Minn. 35, 91 N. W. 20. 277 See $991, ante. 278 City of Denver v. Stein, 25 Colo. 125, 53 Pac. 283; City of Atlanta v. Milam, 95 Ga. 135, 22 S. E. sidewalk, although it may be built on private ground, the duty is imposed of keeping it in a reasonably safe condition.279 (b) Duty; to whom due. The law which protects a public corporation from liability where a highway has been used for an improper purpose, especially in its use by children while playing, 280 is materially relaxed where side and cross walks are used for this purpose.281 In either case the duty is a varying one depending upon the opportunity of children to use public play grounds on 43; City Council of Augusta v. Tharpe, 113 Ga. 152, 38 S. E. 389; City of Flora v. Naney, 136 Ill. 45, 26 N. E. 645, affirming 31 Ill. App. 493; City of Vandalia v. Ropp, 39 Ill. App. 344; City of Bunker Hill v. Pearson, 46 Ill. App. 47; City of Springfield v. Burns, 51 Ill. App. 595; City of Decatur v. Besten, 169 Ill. 340, 48 N. E. 186; City of Huntington v. McClurg, 22 Ind. App. 261, 53 N. E. 658; City of Lafayette v. Larson, 73 Ind. 367; O'Neil v. Village of West Branch, 81 Mich. 544, 45 N. W. 1023; Goins v. City of Moberly, 127 Mo. 116, 29 S. W. 985; Rusher v. City of Aurora, 71 Mo. App. 418; Roe v. Kansas City, 100 Mo. 190, 13 S. W. 404; Whitfield v. City of Meridian, 66 Miss. 570, 6 So. 244, 4 L. R. A. 834; City of Chadron v. Glover, 43 Neb. 732, 62 N. W. 62; Sheridan v. Salem, 14 Or. 328, 12 Pac. 925; Tucker v. Salt Lake City, 10 Utah, 173, 37 Pac. 261; Scott v. Provo City, 14 Utah, 31, 45 Pac. 1005. 279 Foxworthy v. City of Hastings, 31 Neb. 825, 48 N. W. 901; Jewhurst v. City of Syracuse, 108 N. Y. 303, 15 N. E. 409; Seymour v. Village of Salamanca, 137 N. Y. 364, 33 N. E. 304; Neal v. Town of Marion, 129 N. C. 345, 40 S. E. 116; Gagnier v. City of Fargo, 11 N. D. 73, 88 N. W. 1030; Phillips v. City of Huntington, 35 W. Va. 406, 14 S. E. 17. But see Knowlton v. Town of Pittsfield, 62 N. H. 535. 280 City of Chicago v. Starr, 42 Ill. 174; Stinson v. City of Gardiner, 42 Me. 248; Hamilton v. City of Detroit, 105 Mich. 514, 63 N. W. 511; McLaughlin v. City of Philadelphia, 142 Pa. 80, 21 Atl. 754; Gaughan v. Philadelphia, 119 Pa. 503, 13 Atl. 300. See § 991, ante. 281 City of Chicago v. Keefe, 114 Ill. 222; City of Indianapolis v. Emmelman, 108 Ind. 530, 9 N. E. 155; Murley v. Roche, 130 Mass. 330; Gulline v. Lowell, 144 Mass. 491, 11 N. E. 723; Graham v. City of Boston, 156 Mass. 75, 30 N. E. 170; City of Vicksburg v. McLain, 67 Miss. 4, 6 So. 774; Donoho v. Vulcan Iron Works, 75 Mo. 401; City of Omaha v. Richards, 49 Neb. 244, 68 N. W. 528; Crawford v. Wilson, & Baillie Mfg. Co., 8 Misc. 48, 28 N. Y. Supp. 514; McVee v. City of Watertown, 92 Hun, 306, 36 N. Y. Supp. 870; McGarry v. Loomis, 63 N. Y. Supp. 104. "A point is made upon an exception to the remark of the judge, that the child had the right to play on the sidewalk. This language was used in connection with the remark that the child had a right to be on the sidewalk, and the whole force of the remark as to the right to play was, that being on the sidewalk, the fact of playing there would not constitute con their own yards. In a thickly settled portion of a large city, greater rights undoubtedly should be allowed residents in this respect than in country towns, suburban localities or portions of a city or town. The rule of exemption from liability where a highway is used for an improper purpose or for unusual loads or in an unusual manner applies equally to side and cross walks.282 § 1016. Duty; when absolute. The obligation to properly construct and maintain in a reasonably safe condition applies to walks built by owners whether upon their own volition 283 or because of some ordinance or resolution requiring their construction.28 In this particular, the duty can be said to be an absolute one as to the public corporation and cannot be evaded or shifted upon others.285 A joint liability may tributory negligence so as to defeat a recovery. If it did not mean this, it had no relevancy to the case, and was not, for that reason, error. There was no occasion for a charge as to the legal right of children to play on the sidewalk, to the exclusion of or interference with persons passing and repassing nor was any such idea intended. That it is not unlawful, wrongful or negligent for children to play on the sidewalk, is a proposition which it is too plain for comment." McGuire v. Spence, 91 N. Y. Supp. 303; Gibson v. City of Huntington, 38 W. Va. 177, 18 S. E. 447, 22 L. R. A. 561; Reed v. City of Madison, 83 Wis. 171, 53 N. W. 547, 17 L. R. A. 733. 282 Kohlhof v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 249, 61 N. E. 446. One cannot recover for injuries received from the breaking of a sidewalk where he was engaged in moving a safe upon it when the walk was reasonably safe for use in an ordinary manner. Wheeler v. City of Boone, 108 Iowa, 235, 78 N. W. 909, 44 L. R. A. 821. A city is under no obligation to keep its sidewalks reasonably safe for one riding a tricycle. Leslie v. City of Grand Rapids, 120 Mich. 28, 78 N. W. 885; Lee v. City of Port Huron, 128 Mich. 533, 87 N. W. 637, 55 L. R. A. 308. Not necessary to keep a sidewalk in safe condition for bicycle rider. Morrison v. City of Syracuse, 53 App. Div. 490, 65 N. Y. Supp. 939, Id., 45 App. Div. 421, 61 N. Y. Supp. 313. 283 Oliver v. Kansas City, 69 Mo. 79; Hutchings v. Inhabitants of Sullivan, 90 Me. 131, 37 Atl. 883; Kinney v. City of Tekemah, 30 Neb. 605, 46 N. W. 835. 284 Webster v. City of Beaver Dam, 84 Fed. 280; Boucher v. City of New Haven, 40 Conn. 457; City of Aurora v. Bitner, 100 Ind. 396. But see Dooley v. Town of Sullivan, 112 Ind. 451, 14 N. E. 566. 285 Webster v. City of Beaver Dam, 84 Fed. 280; City of Denver v. Hickey, 9 Colo. App. 137, 47 Pac. 908; City of Rock Island v. Starkey, 189 Ill. 515, 59 N. E. 971; Shannon |