Lincoln v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 26 June 1894
• Citation: 59 N.W. 617,101 Mich. 245
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: LINCOLN v. CITY OF DETROIT.

59 N.W. 617

101 Mich. 245

LINCOLN v. CITY OF DETROIT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 26, 1894

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Cornelius J. Reilly, Judge.

Action by George V. Lincoln against the city of Detroit. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

John J. Speed and T. T. Leete, Jr., for appellant.

Edgar Weeks (Oscar M. Springer, of counsel), for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

Plaintiff recovered for an injury received at the intersection of Franklin and Rivard streets, in Detroit. The theory of the plaintiff was that the injury occurred from his stepping on the edge of the iron covering of a manhole, which was situated just outside the sidewalk, and at the corner formed by the intersection of the two crosswalks with the sidewalk. The evidence tended to show that the covering to the manhole rested upon a stone which formed a rim, and that, either because this stone had worn away or because originally too large for the purpose, whenever a person stepped on the edge of the iron covering, the natural result was to force the rim far enough away so that the edge would drop down, and let the traveler down into the manhole. This is the way the injury is claimed to have occurred in the present case. The plaintiff was at the time attempting to cross diagonally from the northwest corner of the intersection of the two streets to the southeast corner. It is contended by the defendant that the city is not required to keep the whole width of its highway for pedestrians, and, if the portion devoted to travel is safe, this is sufficient. Counsel cite, as sustaining this contention, the case of Keyes v Marcellus, 50 Mich. 441, 15 N.W. 542. That case is however, clearly distinguishable from the present. The street considered in that case in which the defect existed was said to be little more than a country highway, and it was held that it accommodated public travel conveniently and safely. We think in the present case it was a duty to render this manhole reasonably safe, having reference to the probable uses which the public would make of it. The statute is broad enough to cover this portion and all portions of the street. 3 How. Ann. St. � 1446c. While it would not be required of the city to construct a smooth surface for travel at the point where the manhole was situated, and while it is not necessary that it should be on a level with the sidewalk, yet it is not either extraordinary nor negligent for pedestrians, in crossing the street, to cross at other points than the crosswalks, and to pass over such manholes using due caution; and, if there was such a...