Schwingschlegl v. City of Monroe
Decision Date | 13 July 1897 |
Citation | 72 N.W. 7,113 Mich. 683 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | SCHWINGSCHLEGL v. CITY OF MONROE. |
Error to circuit court, Monroe county; Edward D. Kinne, Judge.
Suit by Antoine Schwingschlegl against the city of Monroe. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
A. B Bragdon and C. A. Golden, for appellant.
Ira G Humphrey and Willis Baldwin, for appellee.
The plaintiff, a deaf mute, recovered a judgment against defendant for injuries received upon a defective sidewalk. Defendant appeals, and assigns, among others, errors in relation to matters that have been before this court so often it would not be profitable to discuss them. The assignments of error we deem important will be discussed. The record shows that in the winter of 1894 plaintiff slipped upon the ice. In March he slipped upon the sidewalk, and sprained his ankle so badly that he had it treated by a doctor. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff indicated that it was nearly, if not quite, well, when he received the injury, June 10th, for which this action is brought. In the winter, prior to the time of the accident, a sewer passing under the sidewalk was torn up. It was afterwards filled as well as could be done in winter weather and some boards were laid upon the ground to keep people passing over the walk out of the mud. In the spring the earth settled under these boards from two to six inches. The boards were not nailed, but lay flat upon the earth, and sometimes the rain and sun had the effect to warp them so that one of them would roll under the person stepping upon it. There was abundant testimony to go to the jury showing that the municipal authorities had notice of the unsafe condition of the walk. The plaintiff passed over this walk frequently, and had passed over it early in the evening of the same day when the accident occurred. The injury was received about 10 o'clock in the evening. The defendant asked the court to take the case away from the jury for the reason that plaintiff was familiar with the walk, and knew its condition, and in passing over it was guilty of contributory negligence. The court declined to do this, but instructed the jury: We think the learned judge correctly stated the law in relation to this feature of the case. Lowell v. Watertown Tp., 58 Mich. 568, 25 N.W. 517; Harris v. Township of Clinton, 64 Mich. 447, 31 N.W. 425; Dundas v. City of Lansing, 75 Mich. 499, 42 N.W. 1011; Brezee v. Powers, 80 Mich. 172, 45 N.W. 130; Ashman v. Railroad Co., 90 Mich. 567, 51 N.W. 645; Corcoran v. City of Detroit, 95 Mich. 84, 54 N.W. 692; Dittrich v....
To continue reading
Request your trial