Griffin v. Jackson Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1901
• Citation: 87 N.W. 888,128 Mich. 653
• Parties: GRIFFIN v. JACKSON LIGHT & POWER CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

87 N.W. 888

128 Mich. 653

GRIFFIN v. JACKSON LIGHT & POWER CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 12, 1901

Error to circuit court, Jackson county; Erastus Peck, Judge.

Action by Michael Griffin against the Jackson Light & Power Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed.

Wilson & Cobb, for appellant.

Charles A. Blair and Richard Price, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY C.J.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover for a negligent injury. The facts, as they appear by the testimony, are that the plaintiff was in the employ of the Schlitz Brewing Company, engaged in delivering beer to its customers. One Wright Calkins was a customer of the brewing company. On his premises, and in the cellarway through which plaintiff passed in delivering the beer, was an electric light, attached to a movable wire, supplied with a brass or metal handle or hanger, by which it was hung upon a nail in the cellarway. The wire connecting therewith passed through a hole in the lower end of the handle; thence to the carbon film in the bulb. It was claimed that it was necessary in using the light, and customary, to take hold of the handle of the hanger. The breach of duty alleged is that the defendant failed to insulate the wire and handle to the fixture properly. It appears by the testimony of Calkins that the handle had formerly had a kind of cement wrapper on, but, in carrying it through the celler, it would get loose and drop off, and that it was off at the time of the accident; that some two or three weeks before the accident an agent of the defendant put in a new wire, but did not put any cement or wrapping on at that time; that the agent of the defendant was notified that the wrapper to the handle was off, and that he (Calkins) wanted a new one put on, and that the agent promised to fix it, but that it never was fixed prior to the accident. Plaintiff recovered a judgment for injuries sustained, and the defendant brings error.

The principal contention of defendant is that upon this state of facts it does not appear that there was any such privity between the plaintiff and the defendant as entitles the plaintiff to recover for the defendant's neglect, that whatever duty the defendant owed it owed to Calkins, and that third parties injured by reason of this neglect of duty are not entitled to recover against the defendant. There was evidence tending to show that the defendant was owner of this fixture, but this does not determine the question of liability. In the leading case of Winterbottom v Wright, 10 Mees. & W. 109, the defendant was the owner of the mail coach supplied, and it was also his duty to keep it in repair; and it may be stated as a general rule that one who lets property for use, like one who sells it, is not responsible to third parties injured by reason of a defect in the article or property let or sold. See Necker v. Harvey, 49 Mich. 517, 14 N.W. 503; Fowles v. Briggs, 116 Mich., at page 428, 74 N.W 1046, 40 L. R. A. 530, 72 Am. St. Rep. 539, 540, and cases cited. In Fowles v. Briggs it was said that the only apparent exceptions to this rule were where the fault consisted of...