Good v. Mich. Farm & Indus. Fair, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1935
• Docket Number: No. 96.,96.
• Citation: 259 N.W. 149,270 Mich. 543
• Parties: GOOD v. MICHIGAN FARM & INDUSTRIAL FAIR, Inc., et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

270 Mich. 543

259 N.W. 149

GOOD

v.MICHIGAN FARM & INDUSTRIAL FAIR, Inc., et al.

No. 96.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 5, 1935.

Action by Joseph F. Good against the Michigan Farm & Industrial Fair, Inc., and others. From a judgment of dismissal as against named defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Thomas J. Murphy, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Axford & Hulett, of Detroit (George P. Coash, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, of Detroit, for appellee Michigan Farm & Industrial Fair, Inc.

NORTH, Justice.

In the fall of 1933, plaintiff having paid the required admission entered the Michigan state fair grounds at Detroit at the so-called North Woodward avenue entrance. There were two large iron gates hung between two brick pillars which were about 24 feet apart at this entrance which is used as a means of ingress and egress both for vehicular traffic and pedestrians. There was no separate entrance at this point for pedestrians, although there were at least two other entrances from Woodward avenue to the fair grounds which were used by pedestrians. Plaintiff presumably knew of these other entrances, he being a man fifty-three years of age who had been a resident of the city of Detroit for substantially eighteen years and had visited the state fair grounds on many previous occasions. At this North Woodward avenue entrance, there is a paved way 20 feet in width extending in an easterly direction to the exposition uildings on the grounds. Plaintiff proceeded on foot along the southerly edge of this pavement, and, when approximately 350 feet from the entrance, was overtaken and struck by a Ford truck owned and operated by Antonio Vetrano. Plaintiff was quite seriously injured, and he brought this suit for damages against the Michigan Farm & Industrial Fair, Inc., a Michigan corporation, which was conducting the state fair, and against the driver and owner of the truck, Antonio Vetrano. A third party was also made defendant, but the suit was dismissed as to him and of this plaintiff makes no complaint. In the circuit court the case was tried without a jury and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant Michigan Farm & Industrial Fair, Inc.; but as against the defendant Antonio Vetrano, plaintiff had judgment for $2,200. Plaintiff, claiming that his suit should not have been dismissed as to the Michigan Farm & Industrial Fair, Inc., has appealed. We quote from appellant's brief:

‘It is the contention of the plaintiff and appellant that said defendant, Michigan Farm and Industrial Fair, Inc., was guilty of negligence in permitting plaintiff to enter the Fair Grounds at the North Woodward Avenue gate, which was not a reasonably safe entrance for its invited guests attending the fair on foot and should therefore respond in damages for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. * * *

‘It was the legal duty of the defendant Michigan Farm and Industrial Fair, Inc., to have its premises in a reasonably safe condition for the protection of persons who came upon them at its invitation. It was the lessee of the Michigan State Fair Grounds and had full and complete control of same.’

As a legal proposition, it may be admitted that it was the duty of the lessee of these fair grounds to keep them in a condition which was reasonably safe for patrons attending the fair; but in the instant case the question of fact is presented as to whether the lessee failed to discharge this duty. The burden was upon plaintiff to establish this breach of duty and to show that this was the proximate cause of the accident in consequence of which he seeks to recover damages. There is also the possible question of plaintiff's contributory negligence, which we need not consider at this time.

The pavement along which plaintiff was walking extends through an open space. On either side weeds were growing to a height of 6 or 8 inches and the ground was somewhat uneven. Most pedestrians who came in at this entrance walked along the roadway, but some proceeded across the open spaces to reach various parts of the fair grounds. Obviously, it was a matter of choice as to which course a pedestrian would pursue. While there were no signs announcing that this was an entrance which was used by delivery vehicles, the general surroundings and the character of the pavement rather plainly indicated such use and plaintiff testified he recognized ‘it was a street.’ The truck of defendant Vetrano was equipped with a body which extended 12 or 14 inches beyond the running boards. It is plaintiff's claim that he was overtaken and struck in the back on the right-hand side by the projecting corner of the truck body just as he was in the act of turning to his right for the purpose of looking back or in a westerly direction. Presumably, this was the view adopted by the trial judge as the basis of rendering judgment against the truck driver. Our review of the record fails to disclose proof of any breach of the duty of Michigan Farm & Industrial Fair, Inc., to maintain the fair grounds in a reasonably safe condition for the use of its patrons.

Plaintiff cites and relies much upon Cousineau v. Traction & Lighting Co., 145 Mich. 314, 108 N. W. 720, also reported in Id., 152 Mich. 48, 115 N. W. 987; Scott v. University Athletic Ass'n, 152 Mich. 684, 116 N. W. 624,17 L. R. A. ...