Barron v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 10 February 1893
• Citation: 54 N.W. 273,94 Mich. 601
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BARRON v. CITY OF DETROIT.

54 N.W. 273

94 Mich. 601

BARRON v. CITY OF DETROIT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 10, 1893

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Cornelius J. Reilly, Judge.

Action by Adolphus Barron against the city of Detroit to recover for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

John J Speed, for appellant.

I. G Humphrey and Orla B. Taylor, (Edwin F. Conely, of counsel,) for appellee.

LONG J.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. It appears that in January, 1890, by resolution of the common council, the city engineer was instructed to prepare plans for the construction of a market building. The plans were prepared and submitted in response to the resolution, and the board of public works was directed to advertise for proposals for constructing the building in accordance therewith. Proposals were advertised for, and the board of public works reported that Patrick Dee was the lowest bidder; and by instruction of the common council the board entered into a contract for the construction of the building with him, which contract was confirmed by the council. The plans were prepared by a draughtsman in the office of, and under the supervision of, the city engineer. The building was an open structure, on iron columns about 15 feet apart, surmounted by a roof composed of wood and iron. It was built in the form of a cross; being about 300 feet one way, and 400 feet the other. The columns rested upon stone piers, but were not anchored. At the time the plans were prepared, the propriety of anchoring the columns was discussed by the draughtsman and engineer. The draughtsman thought it ought to be anchored but the engineer thought the construction strong enough, and his opinion was followed. He claims, however, to have looked the plans over hurriedly, and did not examine them carefully, for the reason that a competent superintendent was to be employed, and that the building would be properly constructed under him, and if any defect existed the omission would be supplied as the work progressed. The superintendent was appointed, and the work carried on under the contractor. Before it was completed some members of the board of public works expressed the opinion that the structure was dangerous, and would go down in a wind; and on the advice of the city engineer it was examined by architects,and upon their recommendation several braces were added, to strengthen it. One of the architects thus called says that he advised the inserting of some strips, and putting bolts through them, and anchoring them down; that it should be anchored in some way. These suggestions were referred by the board of public works to the contractor, and he placed extra braces in the roof, but did not anchor the columns. It was testified by some of the architects that in such buildings, in this part of the country, 40 pounds to the square foot, wind pressure, is usually allowed; and it was further shown that the velocity of the wind, to exert 40 pounds' pressure, is 90 to 100 miles an hour. On December 23, 1890, in a wind blowing about 50 miles an hour, this market building fell; no other buildings in the vicinity being affected; so that it is apparent that the fault was in the failure to anchor the columns. The plaintiff was injured by the falling of the building. It is conceded that at the time he was lawfully upon the premises, having paid the usual license fee required and collected by the city. His claim for damages having been refused by the common council, this suit was brought, and he was awarded damages in the sum of $1,000. By the charter of the city of Detroit the common council is authorized to erect and maintain market houses; erect markets and market places.

It is contended by counsel for the city that when the common council of the city authorized the making of plans and specifications for the market building, and directed the making of the contracts for its construction, it performed a purely legislative function; that the fault which occasioned the collapse of the building was in the plan, which failed to provide for anchoring it so that it could not be lifted from its foundation by the wind; that there was evident miscalculation as to the weight being sufficient to keep it in place. Counsel insists that the fault is with legislative action, and therefore a suit grounded upon it is grounded upon a wrong attributable to the legislative body itself, as the determination to construct the public work, and the prescribing of the plans, are matters of legislation on behalf of the city, under the direction of its legislative body; that in carrying out the plans there may be negligence attributable to ministerial officers, but negligence in the plans themselves must be attributable to the body that devised, ordered, or adopted it,-and therefore the action cannot be maintained, under the principle applied in Larkin v. Saginaw Co., 11 Mich. 88; Detroit v. Be...