Miller v. Bd. of Cnty. Rd. Com'rs of Manistee Cnty.
Decision Date | 21 May 1941 |
Docket Number | No. 151,January Term, 1941.,151 |
Citation | 298 N.W. 105,297 Mich. 487 |
Parties | MILLER v. BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD COM'RS OF MANISTEE COUNTY et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Arthur Miller, administrator of the estate of Harry Ulrich, deceased, against the Board of County Road Commissioners of the county of Manistee, and others, for death of deceased as the result of the negligent operation of a truck owned by the board. Judgment was taken by default against William Potter and the estate of Clyde Jones, deceased. The action was dismissed as to I. H. Gingrich & Sons, Inc. From a judgment in favor of the remaining defendants, notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
BOYLES, J., dissenting.Appeal from Circuit Court, Manistee County; Max E. Neal, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Campbell & Campbell, of Manistee, for appellant.
Rupert B. Stephens, Pros. Atty., of Manistee (Henry Miltner and Charles H. Miltner, both of Cadillac, of counsel), for Manistee County.
Henry Miltner, of Cadillac (A. A. Keiser, of Ludington, of counsel), for Board of County Road Com'rs of Manistee County.
I am of the opinion that the verdict of the jury should be sustained.
The board of county road commissioners was the owner of the truck. It permitted its employee to drive the vehicle. Plaintiff's decedent was killed as a result of such employee's negligence. By statute it is provided that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for any injury caused by negligent operation thereof by his agent. Section 4648, 1 Comp.Laws 1929 (Stat.Ann. § 9.1446), provides:
Section 4632, 1 Comp.Laws 1929 (Stat.Ann. § 9.1431), provides:
‘(a) The term ‘motor vehicle’ as used in this act shall include all vehicles impelled on the public highways of this state, by mechanical power except traction engines, road rollers, such vehicles as run only on rails or tracks, fire trucks and apparatus owned by any person, firm or private corporation and used for fire protection, and motor vehicles owned and operated by the federal government. Motor vehicles owned and operated by the state of Michigan, or any municipality thereof, shall be designated by proper signs showing in which department or institution of said state or municipality such motor vehicles are employed, and such department, institution or municipality shall obtain license plates annually from the secretary of state upon applications furnished by him. * * *
‘(c) The term ‘owner’ shall include any person, firm, association or corporation owning or renting a motor vehicle or having the exclusive use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period greater than thirty (30) days.'
The board of county road commissioners is a public corporation. 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 3984 (Stat.Ann. § 9.109). As owner of the motor vehicle, defendant is liable for damages resulting from the negligence of its employee.
It is contended that the board is not liable under the general rule that, at common law, a municipal corporation is immune from claims for damages resulting from the performance of governmental functions. However, in this case, defendant is liable under the statute providing that an owner is liable for negligent operation of a motor vehicle by agent or servant. In addition, 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 4724 (Stat.Ann. § 9.1592), provides:
By providing that the act is applicable to vehicles owned or operated by the State, county, city, town, or district of any political subdivision of the State, when traveling to or from highway work, the liability of defendant is definitely fixed.
It is said that, when the legislature intends to change a common-law rule of law, it must do so in terms of certainty, and that general statutes are not to be construed to include municipalities engaged in the performance of governmental functions. However, this rule is subject to an important exception. In 59 C.J. p. 1103-04, it is said:
In United States v. Knight, 39 U.S. 301, 315, 14 Pet. 301, 10 L.Ed. 465, where the question before the court was whether or not a general statute was applicable where the government was a party, it was argued by the government that the United States are never to be considered as embraced in any statute, unless expressly named. In refusing to follow such contention, the court said:
In an old English case, the Magdalen College case, 11 Coke 66b, 77 Reprint 1234, the question to be decided was whether the king was included within the general words of an act applicable ‘to any person or ‘persons, body politic or corporate.” The act had for its object the prevention of long leases by colleges. It was held that, in view of the fact that such leases, under the circumstances envisaged in the statute, constituted a recognized evil:
The King shall not be exempted by construction of law out of the general words of Acts made to suppress wrong, because he is the fountain of justice and common right. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oakland County Bd. of County Road Com'rs v. Michigan Property & Cas. Guar. Ass'n
...Comm., 303 Mich. 168, 5 N.W.2d 740 (1942); Detroit v. O'Connor, 302 Mich. 531, 5 N.W.2d 453 (1942); Miller v. Manistee Co. Bd. of Rd. Comm'rs, 297 Mich. 487, 298 N.W. 105 (1941), overruled in part by Mead, supra; Marquette Co. v. Northern Mich. Univ. Bd. of Control, 111 Mich.App. 521, 314 N......
-
Anzaldua v. Band
...of the motor vehicle law, 1929 CL 4724. In ruling on Mead, we overturned one of our own prior decisions, Miller v. Manistee Co. Bd. of Rd. Comm'rs, 297 Mich. 487, 298 N.W. 105 (1941). We held that Miller had given the language of the motor vehicle law too broad a construction when it extend......
-
Phillips v. Mirac, Inc., Docket No. 121831, Calendar No. 4.
...broader objective "is for the benefit of the public and the prevention of unrecompensed injury...." Miller v. Manistee Co. Bd. of Rd. Comm'rs, 297 Mich. 487, 493, 298 N.W. 105 (1941), overruled in part by Mead v. Michigan Pub. Service Comm., 303 Mich. 168, 5 N.W.2d 740 The statute at issue ......
-
Sailors v. Board of Education of County of Kent
...Corporations, Section 12, Vol. 1; Young vs. Juneau Juno County, 192 Wis. 646, 212 N.W. 295; Miller vs. Manistee Board of Road Commissioners, 297 Mich. 487 298 N.W. 105, 136 A.L.R. 575; City of Detroit v. O'Connor, 302 Mich. 531 5 N.W.2d 453; Crowley vs. Clark County, 219 Wis. 76 261 N.W. 22......