Originally Posted by
indyfabz
Sounds likely.
The decision cites the SD case that pronounced that there is no common law right of action against the city with regard to streets and highways. I have not read it, but it's quoted in part: "[Cities'] common-law duties respecting streets were abrogated by...legislative enactments. The duties are now limited by statute." That's why the plaintiff had to hang her hat on the reported damage statute.
I peaked at it--the statutes in question were enacted in 1915 and 1939, and the 1939 statute was definitely designed to limit liability to a duty to repair and erect guards around dangerous damage--washouts, big holes or the like.