Blank v. Livonia Tp.

• Decision Date: 28 December 1889
• Citation: 44 N.W. 157,79 Mich. 1
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BLANK v. TOWNSHIP OF LIVONIA.

44 N.W. 157

79 Mich. 1

BLANK v. TOWNSHIP OF LIVONIA.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 28, 1889

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; GEORGE GARTNER, Judge.

Atkinson, Carpenter & Brooke, for plaintiff in error.

J F. Brown, for defendant in error.

CHAMPLIN J.

August Blank was injured by the falling of a bridge in the month of May, 1888. He was driving along the bridge with a double team, a wagon, and a light load of dry wood, when the west stringer broke in two places, where the iron rods pass through it to the straining beam above. The bridge was about 40 feet long and 10 feet high. It was composed of one span of two parallel stringers, which extended the whole length, and were 8 by 10 inches in size. The ends rested upon caps. These stringers were supported by a truss consisting of a straining beam 14 feet long, supported by braces let into the stringers near the ends, and 14 feet long. Supporting rods of iron, two in number upon each side extended from the ends of the straining beams to needle beams below. After the accident the stringer was shown to be defective on account of a dry rot in the center of the timber, which was surrounded by a shell of sound wood upon the surface. In October, 1887, it was discovered that the bridge was defective. A bridge-builder made a cursory examination, pronounced it defective, and made an offer to the commissioner of highways to build a new bridge. The commissioner told him that it was only necessary to put in a new side on the east side of the bridge. This is the only notice of any defect which the testimony shows the officers of the town had, and no particular defect was pointed out by the bridge-builder. Immediately after such notice the highway commissioner caused the bridge to be repaired by putting in a new stringer on the east side. The defect which was apparent in this stringer was a split, but he did not find it decayed in the manner the west stringer turned out to be the next spring. At the time he made these repairs, in October, 1887 he examined the west stringer by chipping and sounding with his axe, and there was no visible defect, and he concluded it was all right. The bridge had been built about eight years and the stringers were taken from the same tree, and were swamp oak. Several witnesses called and examined both for plaintiff and defendant testified that they lived near and frequently crossed the bridge, and never noticed any defect in the west stringer until it broke.

The defendant called as a witness the man who originally built the bridge, who was a professional bridge-builder and asked him how long such a stringer usually remained good. The plaintiff objected to the question, without stating any reason, and likewise, without stating any reason for his ruling, the court sustained the objection. This was error. The main question in controversy was whether the defendant knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of the defect in the west stringer of the bridge. No actual notice of the particular defect was shown. The members of the township board and the highway commissioner, after October, 1887, never heard of the bridge being out of repair, and had no knowledge and no notice of the defect in the west stringer until after the accident. The question was therefore narrowed...