O'Neil v. Detroit

• Decision Date: 27 February 1883
• Citation: 15 N.W. 48,50 Mich. 133
• Parties: O'NEIL v. CITY OF DETROIT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

15 N.W. 48

50 Mich. 133

O'NEIL v. CITY OF DETROIT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 27, 1883

What is to be considered a sidewalk and what a cross-walk having received a settled construction by the practice of the city authorities of Detroit in levying sidewalk rates, and requiring the owners of property to keep certain parts of their walks in repair, this construction will be followed in an action against the city for an injury caused by a defect in an alleged cross-walk, in determining its liability therefor.

Error to superior court of Detroit.

Conely, Maybury & Lucking, for plaintiff.

Henry M. Duffield, for defendant and appellant.

COOLEY J.

The city of Detroit brings error in this case upon a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff for a personal injury suffered by her in passing along one of its streets. The place of injury was at the intersection of Labrosse street with Trumbull avenue, a little outside the line which bounds lots on Labrosse street, extended across the avenue. The place of injury was on the walk for foot passengers, and the injury was occasioned by a defect which had existed for some time, but of which the plaintiff was unaware. No negligence is attributed to the plaintiff, and the principal question made on the trial was, whether for an injury occasioned by a defect in the street at the place where this occurred the city was liable under the statute.

The principal contention appears to have been over the question whether the defective place was to be considered a part of the sidewalk or a part of the cross-walk. It is seen that it was within the bounds of Labrosse street and that it was upon that part of the street which is appropriated to and prepared for the use of foot passengers. It was also on the line for the crossing of foot passengers on the northerly side of Trumbull avenue. If the whole crossing of the avenue from boundary to boundary of Labrosse street is to be deemed cross-walk, then the defect which caused the injury was in the cross-walk, but if the cross-walk is deemed to extend to the line of the sidewalk only then the defect was in the sidewalk.

The importance of this contention will appear when it is known that the city is responsible for injuries occasioned by defects in the carriage-way or street proper, and in the cross-walks, but not for those occasioned by defects in the sidewalks. Pub. Acts 1879, p. 223; Detroit v Putnam, 45 Mich. 263; [S.C. 7 N.W. 815.] Why this difference in liability was established by statute is matter of conjecture, but we have...