Finch v. Village of Bangor
| Decision Date | 12 May 1903 |
| Citation | 94 N.W. 738,133 Mich. 149 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | FINCH v. VILLAGE OF BANGOR. |
Error to Circuit Court, Van Buren County; John R. Carr, Judge.
Action by Louisa Finch against the village of Bangor. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Lynn J. Lewis and Gore & Harvey, for appellant.
Kelley & Chase and T. J. Cavanaugh, for appellee.
The plaintiff recovered a small judgment against the defendant in an action for damages, arising from a personal injury. The village authorities were engaged in constructing a sidewalk and some of the old planks were piled in the street after being taken up. The accident occurred near a street corner. Instead of going to the cross-walk, the plaintiff stepped from the sidewalk bed over the curb into the gutter, about 10 or 15 feet from the cross-walk, with the apparent intention of going diagonally to the cross-walk. She claims to have stumbled over a board and fallen, and the jury was permitted to find that, although she did not see any board, because of the darkness, there was a board there, and that it was one of the boards formerly a part of the old walk, and that it was thrown in the street by those doing the work for the city, and that she fell by reason of stumbling over it.
It is contended: (1) That the declaration does not state a cause of action: (a) Because it does not allege a defect in the street itself; (b) it shows a want of liability, because it is not actionable for a village to leave a loose board in a gutter overnight; (c) it fails to show that the defendant had a reasonable time and opportunity to put the street in proper condition after knowledge of its being unfit for travel. (2) That a verdict for the defendant should have been directed for the reason that there is no proof of negligence, inasmuch as no one is shown to have seen the board either before or after the accident. (3) The want of repair was not the immediate cause of the injury. (4) Want of knowledge on defendant's part of the existence of the defect. (5) Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
We are of the opinion that there is testimony in the case from which it may be inferred that the plaintiff fell over a board, and that it was placed in the gutter by the agents of the city, which therefore had notice, and while it may not have been negligent for the city, in making its repairs, to place such material in the highway in a reasonable manner and place, and leave it there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. City of Detroit
...248 Mich. 306, 309-310, 226 N.W. 865 (1929). 7. Id. at 309, 226 N.W. 865. 8. Id. at 309-310, 226 N.W. 865, citing Finch v. Village of Bangor, 133 Mich. 149, 94 N.W. 738 (1903); Baker v. Grand Rapids, 111 Mich. 447, 69 N.W. 740 (1897); Lincoln v. Detroit, 101 Mich. 245, 59 N.W. 617 (1894). S......
-
Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools
...it was not liable "because the injury did not result from a want of repair of the street * * *," 9 and in Finch v. Village of Bangor, 133 Mich. 149, 150, 94 N.W. 738, 739 (1903), the village argued that it was not liable because "want of repair was not the immediate cause of the injury." 10......
-
Mason v. Wayne County Bd. of Com'rs
...Detroit [101 Mich. 245, 59 N.W. 617 (1894) ]; 8 Baker v City of Grand Rapids, 111 Mich 447 [69 N.W. 740 (1897) ]; Finch v Village of Bangor, 133 Mich. 149 [94 N.W. 738 (1903) ]. In all of these cases pedestrians were injured when off the side or crosswalks." Jablonski v Bay City, 248 Mich. ......
-
Rufner v. Traverse City
...probably to walk. Lincoln v. City of Detroit, supra; Baker v. City of Grand Rapids, 111 Mich. 447, 69 N.W. 740;Finch v. Village of Bangor, 133 Mich. 149, 94 N.W. 738. In all of these cases pedestrians were injured when off the side or crosswalks. ‘There is nothing in the declaration which i......