City of Detroit v. Beckman

Decision Date06 June 1876
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesThe City of Detroit v. Elenore M. Beckman

Submitted on Briefs April 14, 1876

Error to Superior Court of Detroit.

Judgment reversed, with costs of both courts.

D. C Holbrook, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kirchner, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Cooley, Ch. J.

This action was brought by the defendant in error to recover for the negligent killing of her intestate. The death appears to have been caused by the intestate running the wagon which he was driving through one of the city streets off the end of a culvert and overturning into a ditch. The accident took place late in the evening, and the complaint is, that the city was negligent in causing so short a culvert to be constructed, and leaving so much of the ditch open and unprotected. The ditch and culvert were not of recent construction, and it was not alleged that there was any negligence whatever in the construction except that which pertained to the plan itself.

In the brief for the defendant in error it is stated that "no question is made as to the liability of the city of Detroit for the injury set out in the declaration. The only questions arise upon the charges and refusals to charge as to what constitute negligence, etc." We do not find this distinctly admitted on the part of the city, and if it were, the admission of a rule of law could not obligate the court to accept and act upon it. And in this case it is very plain that there is no right of action whatever.

When complaint is made that the original plan of a public work is so defective as to render the work dangerous when completed, it is apparent that the fault found is with legislative action, and a suit grounded upon it is grounded on a wrong attributable to the legislative body itself. For the determination to construct a public work, and the prescribing of the plan, are and must be matters of legislation, whether done on behalf of the state by or under the directions of its legislative body, or on behalf of a county, town or city by or under the direction of the proper board or council. In the carrying out of the plan there may be negligence attributable to ministerial officers, but negligence in the plan itself must be attributed to the body that devised, ordered or adopted it.

There are cases in which a municipality has been held liable for the construction of a public work which necessarily and inevitably caused injury to individuals. The case of Perry v. Worcester, 6 Gray 544, may be placed in this category. There in repairing a bridge over a river the space for the passage of the water was so narrowed that in times of freshet the water was set back upon proprietors above, to the serious injury of their property. Child v. Boston, 4 Allen 41, was a case where a city was held liable for flooding the plaintiff's premises by neglecting to keep a sewer open and unobstructed, and it can have no bearing on the present controversy. Lacour v. New York, 3 Duer 406, was an action on the case for an injury occasioned by an excavation in one of the streets of New York. On a careless reading it might seem to afford some countenance to the present action, but it is manifest from the opinion that negligence in the performance of the work was the basis of the recovery. There are many cases similar to these, in some of which the judgment has been based upon the negligent action of ministerial agents, while others have given a remedy for what was, in effect, a direct invasion of private property.

The distinction in principle between the case where the complaint is, that the work must necessarily cause an injury to private property equivalent to an appropriation of some enjoyment thereof to which the owner is entitled, and a case where the fault found is with the plan, as not being most wise and prudent to protect against accidents, seems very distinct and palpable. The public authorities cannot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 cases
  • People v. Pegenau
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1994
    ...unanimous Court, noted: "When the language of a statute is clear, courts must apply it as written."3 See also Detroit v. Beckman, 34 Mich. 125, 126 (1876) (opinion of Cooley, J.), "the admission of a rule of law could not obligate the court to accept and act upon it."4 The United States Sup......
  • Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 9, 1976
    ...to another, to be, in turn, eschewed by another judge or jury opening the door to further alteration, etc. ad infinitum; Detroit v. Beckman, 34 Mich. 125 (1876).25 Dermont v. Mayor of Detroit, 4 Mich. 435 (1857). But if a body with discretionary powers acts on a matter as to which it has no......
  • Bd. Of Ed. v. Volk
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1905
    ... ... of Orchard street (now called Steiner street) in the city of ... Cincinnati, county of Hamilton and state of Ohio, being the ... east half of lot number ... N.E. 515; McCarthy v. Boston, 135 Mass. 197; Sullivan v ... Holyoke, 135 Mass. 273; Detroit v. Blackeby, 21 Mich. 84; ... Larkin v. Saginaw County, [72 Ohio St. 475] 11 Mich. 88; ... sioners v. Martin, 4 Mich. 557; Detroit v. Beckman, 34 ... Mich. 125; Sutton v. Board, 41 Miss. 236; Brabham v. Hinds ... County, 54 Miss. 363; ... ...
  • Paul v. Faricy
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1949
    ...v. City of Montevideo, 178 Minn. 430, 227 N.W. 357; Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 220 Minn. 296, 19 N. W.2d 726; City of Detroit v. Beckman, 34 Mich. 125, 22 Am.Rep. 507; Annotation, 2 A.L.R.2d 725; 51 Central L.J. 3. Cf. Blyhl v. Village of Waterville, 57 Minn. 115, 58 N.W. 817, 47 Am.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT