Corey v. City of Ann Arbor

• Decision Date: 15 May 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 804,124 Mich. 134
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: COREY v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR.

82 N.W. 804

124 Mich. 134

COREY v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 15, 1900

Error to circuit court, Washtenaw county; Edward D. Kinne, Judge.

Action by Ratie E. Corey against the city of Ann Arbor to recover for personal injuries. There was a judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Plaintiff slipped upon an icy sidewalk on Williams street, in the city of Ann Arbor, in the evening of February 4, 1898, and received serious injuries. The ice was opposite the premises of one Rockwell, who had a hydrant in his yard. It is claimed that the penstock either leaked or was left partly open, so that the water ran from it across the lawn to the sidewalk that it extended quite a distance down the walk, and froze. The ice was smooth, and formed no ridge. There were several inches of snow upon the ground, and the weather for several days previous had been very cold. The sidewalks were covered with snow, which was packed very hard, all over the city, and were more or less slippery. Plaintiff gave testimony tending to show that this water flowed from the hydrant on Tuesday preceding the accident, which was on Friday following. Defendant gave evidence tending to show that the water flowed from the hydrant on the night preceding the accident. Plaintiff was a dressmaker, and lived, with her parents, upon the lot adjoining Mr. Rockwell's. She testified that she went out on Thursday evening, but had not been out of the house since Monday previous until the night she was injured. She is unable to locate the spot where she was injured, and there is some doubt, even from her own statement, whether she fell upon the ice formed by the water from the hydrant. The defendant requested the court to direct a verdict for it upon the ground that no liability was shown. The learned circuit judge stated that, if the case was 'to end in his court he might take a different course about it, but that there was a sort of lingering doubt in his mind that the supreme court might hold there was a liability, and he would, therefore give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.' Plaintiff recovered verdict and judgment.

O. E. Butterfield (John F. Lawrence, of counsel), for appellant.

Lehman Bros. & Stivers, for appellee.

GRANT J. (after stating the facts).

It is conceded that the sidewalk itself was properly constructed and was in a safe condition for public travel. It was only made unsafe by the ice caused by the water flowing from a private hydrant. Counsel for defendant contend that the statute does not cover this case. Counsel for the plaintiff contend that, since the icy condition was not caused by the elements, the city is liable for the condition. It is unnecessary to determine this question, since there is another fatal objection to the plaintiff's right to recover. It is conceded that the defendant city had no...