Goodale v. Portage Lake Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1885
• Citation: 55 Mich. 413,21 N.W. 866
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: GOODALE v. PORTAGE LAKE BRIDGE CO.

21 N.W. 866

55 Mich. 413

GOODALE v. PORTAGE LAKE BRIDGE CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 7, 1885

Error to Houghton.

T.L. Chadbourne, for plaintiff.

T.M Brady, for defendant and appellant.

CHAMPLIN J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in an action of tort. The declaration sets forth that plaintiff, on the thirteenth day of July, 1882, at about half past 10 o'clock P.M., while passing over the bridge of the defendant, fell through the open draw; that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and diligence. The grounds of negligence are that the defendant "negligently, carelessly, and recklessly left said draw open, without any protection against the opening thus left;" that it "carelessly, negligently, and recklessly neglected to give any signal, notice, or warning to said plaintiff that said draw was open;" that it "negligently, carelessly, and recklessly placed on the east side of said bridge, and directly opposite its toll-house, what is known as a bull's-head light, which reflected a bright light directly into the toll-house on said bridge; that said light did not shine into or show said opening, but concealed the same from the plaintiff; that the light from said lamp so dazzled plaintiff's eyes that he could not see said opening, (said light rendering it impossible to see the opening as he approached the same;) and that the employe of the defendant, who was placed in charge of the bridge and draw, was incompetent to perform the duties incident thereto, and unfit to be employed in and about said business, which incompetency and unfitness were known to the defendant at and prior to that time." The declaration further alleges that the injuries plaintiff sustained by said fall were caused by these acts of carelessness, negligence, and recklessness.

The plea was the general issue. The cause was tried before a jury, who rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500. The bridge of the defendant is built across Portage lake, between the villages of Houghton and Hancock, the distance between said villages being from three-quarters of a mile to a mile, the length of the bridge being about 1,300 feet. From the Houghton side of the lake to the draw it is 558 feet. The length of the turntable or draw is 180 feet. The width of passage-way for boats through the draw is about 70 feet. A sidewalk extends across the bridge on its westerly side. Near the sidewalk and the south end of the draw is a small building used as a toll-house. The toll window is six feet six inches south of the edge of the draw. Nine feet eight inches south of the edge, on a line with the railing and on the east side of the bridge, was a head-light with a reflector so placed as to throw light upon the front of the toll-house and upon the planking north of it.

Whether this head-light was so located as to throw the rays of light upon the draw of the bridge when closed or not was a question upon which the testimony differed. The plaintiff's testimony tended to prove that, on the night of the accident the rays of light from this source did not fall so as to disclose any chasm or opening in the bridge. It appears that the other lamp-lights were placed on posts near the end of the draw, and about seven feet above the floor of the bridge but were so dim as to give but little light upon the bridge; the one on the west side of the bridge being behind the toll-house, so it could not be seen by a passenger approaching from the Houghton side. There were two lights placed, one on each side of the draw, so as to show up and down the lake when the draw was open. These lights, the bridge-tender himself testified, were of but little, if any, use to travelers over the bridge. The company commenced to do business in 1876, and this bull's-head light was placed there in the spring of 1882.

At about 10 o'clock P.M., July 13, 1882, plaintiff, in company with Judge WILLIAMS, of Marquette, left Houghton to go to Hancock to take a steamer, and attempted to pass over this bridge. They were walking abreast upon the sidewalk, the judge on plaintiff's left, and next the outside rail. Plaintiff had a valise in his hand. The night was dark. As they came to the toll-house they did not stop, but the judge fell a step behind and placed some bridge tickets on the toll-house counter. As the judge turned away from the counter he saw a man standing near the westerly rail of the bridge and the edge of the draw. Plaintiff was then a step ahead of Judge WILLIAMS, who heard the man say, "Take care!" Instantly the judge said, "Look out!" Plaintiff then swung a little to his right, and went over the edge of the draw. He struck on some timbers a few feet down, and sprained his ankle and lost his valise. When he stepped off plaintiff was walking about three miles an hour. The draw was open to allow some vessels to pass through. It appears that the duty of toll-gatherer and of bridge-tender were performed by the same person, and that no one was in the toll-house at the time the checks were laid upon the counter.

The negligence of the defendant is alleged as consisting (1) in leaving the draw open without any protection against the opening thus left; (2) in neglecting to give any signal notice, or warning...