Gerrie v. City of Port Huron

• Decision Date: 10 April 1924
• Docket Number: No. 154.,154.
• Citation: 198 N.W. 236,226 Mich. 630
• Parties: GERRIE v. CITY OF PORT HURON.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

226 Mich. 630

198 N.W. 236

GERRIE

v.CITY OF PORT HURON.

No. 154.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 10, 1924.

Error to Circuit Court, St. Clair County; E. F. Law, Judge.

Action by A. Emslie Gerrie, administrator of the estate of Laura Gerrie, deceased, against the City of Port Huron. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Walsh & Walsh, of Port Huron, for appellant.

Burt D. Cady, City Atty., and Lincoln Avery, both of Port Huron, for appellee.

WIEST, J.

Black river in the city of Port Huron is havigable. The city maintains a swing bridge across the river on Tenth street. When the bridge is turned to permit the passage of a vessel, iron gates across the street close the way to travel. Shortly before 1 o'clock a. m., November 24, 1921, a vessel signaled for a turn of the bridge, and a policeman, having such duty in charge, closed the gates across the street, went upon the bridge, and had turned it from the street when a Super-Six Hudson sedan came over the street from the north, ran into and knocked down the gate guarding the open draw, and plunged into the river. The occupants of this car were saved. Right on the heels of this happening a Ford coupe, from the same direction, followed the Hudson car into the river. The occupants of this car were drowned.

This action was brought by the administrator of the estate of Laura Gerrie, deceased, who was riding as a guest in the Ford car, to recover damages under the death act.

The declaration charges the city with the following negligence: Failure to provide a gate of sufficient strength to prevent a person exercising due care from driving into the river; failure to provide a light to disclose the gate in time to avoid danger, and maintaining an approach to the bridge paved with material which rendered the way slippery when wet or coated with ice, thereby causing automobiles to skid.

At the close of the proofs the trial judge reserved consideration of defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Upon failure of the jury to agree, a verdict was directed in favor of defendant. By writ of error plaintiff seeks reversal. No actionable negligence was shown, and the verdict directed was right. Negligence of the city, if any, depended upon conditions as they existed at the time the Hudson car knocked down the gate.

The gate was in two sections, with top rail 3x3x 3/8 inches T-iron, the lower rail also of T-iron with lattice work 1 1/4x3/16 inches bar iron, riveted at intersections, and fastened, when closed to travel, by a heavy iron U-shaped latch or saddle. Plaintiff claims this gate did not comply with the requirement fixed by C. L. 1915, § 4432, because not of ‘such design, shape and strength as to effectually bar the progress of teams, animals and footpassengers and prevent them from passing upon such draw or swing span’ when such gate was closed. It is claimed a pressure of 500 to 1,000 pounds would spring the gate open by raising the connecting latch and lifting the sections from the supporting standards.

The Hudson car was going at a speed of 12 to 15 miles per hour and struck the gate while skidding, and its force broke the heavy center latch connecting the sections, broke the bottom rail of one section, tore out some of the...