Corcoran v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 10 March 1893
• Citation: 95 Mich. 84,54 N.W. 692
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CORCORAN v. CITY OF DETROIT.

54 N.W. 692

95 Mich. 84

CORCORAN v. CITY OF DETROIT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 10, 1893

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Henry N. Brevoort, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by John P. Corcoran against the city of Detroit. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

John J. Speed, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas Hislop, (Atkinson & Carpenter, of counsel,) for defendant in error.

HOOKER C.J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendant for personal injuries received by being thrown from his road cart upon Woodward avenue, in the city of Detroit.

The principal error complained of is that the court did not direct a verdict for the defendant; it being claimed that the evidence clearly showed that the highway was in a very bad condition, and that plaintiff knew it, yet that he drove at an improper rate of speed over the defective street. Driving rapidly over a highway, where defects are plainly visible has, under some circumstances, been held contributory negligence. In this case, however, the accident occurred in the night. There is some dispute over the character of the street, and the only evidence of fast driving is the testimony of the driver, who said that he "did not drive up a pretty good jog," but did admit that he was "hurrying along;" and of the plaintiff, who said he was "not in much of a hurry; just a fair rate of speed." We think that the circuit judge was right in submitting the questions of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury.

E. L Brooke was recalled as a witness for the plaintiff, after defendant rested, to give further proof of the condition of the street. This was not rebutting, but was within the discretion of the trial court. The witness testified to the general bad condition of the street in the vicinity of the accident, and said that he broke his buggy there about the time that plaintiff received his injury. This proof of the condition of the streets was admissible as bearing upon the question of notice. The testimony regarding the injury to the buggy of the witness, however, was immaterial. It was volunteered in answer to a proper question. No motion to strike out this testimony was made, and we think the judgment should not be reversed on account of it.

In his charge the court said: "There is no doubt plaintiff has been severely injured." Considering the known predilection of jurors in this class of cases, this...