Jablonski v. City of Bay City

• Decision Date: 07 October 1929
• Docket Number: No. 36.,36.
• Citation: 248 Mich. 306,226 N.W. 865
• Parties: JABLONSKI v. CITY OF BAY CITY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

248 Mich. 306

226 N.W. 865

JABLONSKI

v.CITY OF BAY CITY.

No. 36.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 7, 1929.

Error from Circuit Court, Bay County; Samuel G. Houghton, Judge.

Action by Stanley Jablonski against the City of Bay City. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Frank C. Patterson, of Bay City, for appellant.

A. H. McMillan, of Bay City, for appellee.

FEAD, J.

As far as material here, plaintiff's declaration, in substance, alleges that on November 22, 1928, the corner of Michigan avenue and Twenty-Sixth street, in the city of Bay City, was a business center; between the 5-foot cement sidewalk on the east side of Michigan avenue, south of Twenty-Sixth street, and the paved roadway was a 15-foot parkway; for some eight months prior to above date, for a distance of about 30 feet, beginning about 32 feet south of the corner of Twenty-Sixth street, there had been placed and allowed to remain along the west edge of the sidewalk and over a portion of it a strong, inconspicuous, braided metal wire, fastened to stakes 5 inches high and 12 feet apart, the wire being suspended about 4 inches high at the north stake and sagging and resting on the sidewalk between the north and the next stake south; the city officers had notice and knowledge and reasonable time to remove the wire or remedy the condition; plaintiff, using due care, walked from the pavement across the parkway, diagonally northeasterly, placed his left foot on the sidewalk at a point about 2 feet south of the north end of the wire, caught his right foot in the wire, was thrown to the walk, and severely injured; the wire was practically invisible because of a light fall of snow. The declaration further fully charged negligence, injury, and damages.

On motion to dismiss, in the nature of demurrer, the court held that the declaration did not state a cause of action, as the city had provided a safe place for pedestrians to walk and the wire was not such a defect in the street as rendered it unsafe for travel.

The liability of a city for injuries caused by defects in its streets is purely statutory. The statute, Comp. Laws 1915, § 4584, et seq., predicates such liability on the failure of the city to keep its streets ‘in reasonable repair and in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel.’ Section 4584.

This does not require that all parts of a country road, even within corporate limits, shall be prepared for travel. Keyes v. Village of Marcellus, 50 Mich. 439, 15 N. W. 542,45 Am. Rep. 52. And it undoubtedly is the right of a city to determine, in its discretion and beyond judicial review, what part of a nominal highway shall be devoted to the various purposes of travel, to locate the road for vehicular traffic, and the portions for sidewalks, gutters, parkways, and other suitable uses. McArthur v. City of Saginaw, 58 Mich. 357, 25 N. W. 313,55 Am. Rep. 687.

But the city cannot lawfully, by the mere provision of suitable passageways for pedestrians, maintain dangerous and unreasonable obstructions or conditions in the street at places where people may reasonably be expected to go. It has the duty, in a well-traveled district, to keep the whole highway reasonably safe for travel, Lincoln v. City of Detroit, 101 Mich. 245, 59 N. W. 617. It cannot confine its citizens in a traffic groove. It must take into account the natural inclination of children to run about in play and the perverse insistence of adults to cut corners and cross streets and grass plats instead of following precisely the beaten or provided path. Such departure from the sidewalk is not negligence per se in the individual, nor does it relieve the city of the duty to keep its streets in proper condition for travel at the places where people may reasonably be expected probably to walk. Lincoln v. City of Detroit, supra; Baker v. City of Grand Rapids, 111 Mich. 447, 69 N. W. 740;Finch v....