Church v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 27 January 1887
• Citation: 64 Mich. 571,31 N.W. 447
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CHURCH v. CITY OF DETROIT.

31 N.W. 447

64 Mich. 571

CHURCH v. CITY OF DETROIT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 27, 1887

Error to circuit court, Wayne county.

Action for damages resulting from defect in sidewalk. General demurrer, and judgment for defendant.

James H. McDonald, for plaintiff and appellant.

Henry M. Duffield, for defendant.

CHAMPLIN, J.

Plaintiff brought suit against the city of Detroit to recover damages occasioned by a defective sidewalk on Warren avenue west. The right of recovery is based upon sections 1442 to 1446 of Howell's Statutes as amended by act No. 214 of the Session Laws of 1885, enjoining upon municipal corporations the duty of keeping the sidewalks therein in reasonable repair, and reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. No question is made upon the sufficiency of the declaration in alleging a cause of action in case the statute is legal and valid. The defendant interposed a general demurrer, which was sustained by the court below, and judgment rendered for defendant. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error. The defendant claims that the amendments passed by the legislature at its session in 1885 are unconstitutional and void, as being an infraction of section 20 of article 4 of the constitution, which provides: "No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title."

The title of act No. 214 is as follows: "An act to amend sections 1442, 1443, 1445, and 1446 of Howell's Annotated Statutes, being sections 1, 2, 4, and 5 of act No. 244 of the Session Laws of 1879, entitled 'An act for the collection of damages sustained by reason of defective public highways streets, bridges, cross-walks, and culverts,' so as to make said act cover damages sustained by reason of defective sidewalks."

The only section of act No. 244 which is not amended by act No 214 is section 3, which is not important to be noticed in this discussion. The amending act comprises seven sections two of which sections, 6 and 7, are entirely new. The objection to the amending act is that sections 6 and 7 are not covered by the title, and that they are so necessarily connected with what precedes, and so essentially a part of its scope and purpose, that if they fall the whole amended act must fall with them, which would leave the law to stand as it was before the attempted amendment.

The three first sections are re-enactments of the old law, with the addition of the word "sidewalks," thus making it the duty of municipal corporations to keep its sidewalks in reasonable repair, and reasonably safe and fit for public travel, and creating a liability in favor of a person injured by such neglect of duty. Section 6 provides that no township, village, or city in this state "shall be liable," etc., except "under and according to the provisions of this act," and "abrogating the common-law liability." Section 7 limits the amount recoverable to $300 against a municipality of a population of 500 or less; $600 where the population is over 500 and less than 1,000; $1,000 where the population is over 1,000 and less than 2,000; and $1,800 where the population is over 2,000. The population is to be ascertained from the census taken next preceding the commencement of suit. This section also contains a proviso that the owner of the lot abutting the sidewalk on which the injury occurred for which judgment was recovered, and whose duty it is to build and maintain such sidewalk, shall not be liable to the city, village, or township for or on account of such judgment.

There is nothing said in the title of the act about adding any new sections, and nothing expressed therein relative to abrogating the common-law liability of townships, villages and cities for or on account of bodily injuries sustained by any person, by reason of neglect to keep in repair highways cross-walks, etc. So far as section 5 is concerned, it abrogated what this court had previously held did not exist in this state. But the federal courts took a different view, and held that such liability does exist at common law, and suitors in those courts were allowed to maintain actions...