DeGroot v. Edison Institute

• Decision Date: 07 September 1943
• Docket Number: No. 31.,31.
• Parties: DeGROOT v. EDISON INSTITUTE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

306 Mich. 339

10 N.W.2d 907

DeGROOT

v.EDISON INSTITUTE.

No. 31.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 7, 1943.

Action by Leona M. DeGroot against the Edison Institute, a Michigan corporation, for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while dismounting from a carriage provided by defendant for convenience of its guests at Greenfield Village. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from a judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Max E. Neal, Judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

William J. Eggenberger, of Detroit, for appellant.

Frederick J. Ward, of Detroit, for appellee.

NORTH, Justice.

This is a personal injury case, tried before a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000. It was agreed by counsel in the absence of the jury that the questions of law and fact relating to defendant's alleged legal status as a charitable corporation, its liability for the torts of its agents and the effect of liability insurance thereon should be reserved under the provisions of the Empson act whereby counsel could submit briefs on the law and take testimony as to those facts, if necessary, after the verdict. Accordingly the case was tried before the jury on the question of negligence and damages alone. After the verdict, proof was taken on the matters relating to defendant's incorporation, its general purpose and the way in which the affairs of the defendant are conducted. At conclusion of this proof, defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was granted and plaintiff appeals.

On June 2, 1936, plaintiff, accompanying other members of a social club, visited defendant's premises which are commonly known as the ‘Greenfield Village’ near Dearborn, Michigan. Plaintiff paid the entrance fee of 25 cents required of adults. During the day, in which it was apparent that a storm was gathering, plaintiff reached an exhibit known as the jewelry store. After some time, the weather becoming very threatening, plaintiff and her group sought and obtained transportation to the waiting station in one of the horse-drawn vehicles provided by defendant for the convenience of its guests. As the carriage arrived at the waiting station the storm broke in great violence, accompanied by thunder and lightning, a high wind and hail. The storm was of such violence that it caused considerable damage to buildings in the vicinity. As plaintiff was in the act of stepping down from the exit of the carriage, plaintiff claims the horses bolted and threw her to the ground and caused her injuries.

Defendant corporation was incorporated as a non-profit corporation under Act No. 84; part 1, chap. 1, § 2, Pub.Acts 1921, Comp.Laws 1929, § 9944. Its purposes are set forth in Article III of its Articles of Association, viz.:

‘The purpose or purposes for which it is formed are as follows:

‘(a) To assemble and exhibit, publish and disseminate historical, scientific, sociological and artistic information and to do any and all things calculated directly or indirectly to advance the cause of education, whether general, technical, sociological or aesthetic.

‘(b) To demonstrate, for educational purposes, the development of American arts, sciences, customs and institutions by reproducing or re-enacting the conditions and circumstances of such development in any manner calculated to convey a realistic picture thereof.

‘(c) To purchase, take on lease, or otherwise acquire, take over, hold, sell, liquidate, or otherwise dispose of such property, real or personal and tangible or intangible as may seem expedient to a furtherance of its purposes; to alter, extend, or develop the same, and to pay for any such properties or their alteration, extension, or development in cash, stock, bonds, debentures, securities, or obligations of this corporation, or otherwise.’

The incorporators and sole stockholders were, at the time of the trial, Henry Ford, Clara J. Ford, and Edsel B. Ford. For the accomplishment of its object, defendant has gathered together a large number of objects having an historical and educational value. The greater part of the material has been housed and arranged for display to the public to such an extent that ‘Greenfield Village’ is unique for its size and completeness as an historical museum. An investment of approximately $20,000,000 is represented in land and buildings and equipment. A large staff of persons is maintained on the premises for the maintenance of the property, the guidance of guests, and the operation of early American industries in their original form. The products of these industries are sold to the public on the premises. A charge of 25 cents as admission is made to adults, but school children are generally admitted free. The cost of maintenance far exceeds the income produced by the admission fees and sale of objects. The deficit is annually paid by the incorporators and their affiliate, the Ford Foundation.

As a part of its equipment, defendant has gathered a number of original...