Scott v. Univ. of Mich. Athletic Ass'n

• Citation: 116 N.W. 624,152 Mich. 684
• Parties: SCOTT v. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ATHLETIC ASS'N et al.
• Decision Date: 26 May 1908
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

152 Mich. 684
116 N.W. 624

SCOTT
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ATHLETIC ASS'N et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 26, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court, Monroe County; Harry A. Lockwood, Judge.

Action by Frnak W. Scott against the University of Michigan Athletic Association and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued before GRANT, C. J., and BLAIR, MONTGOMERY, OSTRANDER, and CARPENTER, JJ.

[116 N.W. 624]

Lee N. Brown, E. B. Norris, and J. W. Bennett, for appellant.

Arthur R. Brown and Edson R. Sutherland (Thomas A. Bogle, of counsel), for appellees.

OSTRANDER, J.

Testimony was given from which the jury might have found that plaintiff was injured by the collapse of a stand or bleacher erected by the defendant association for the use of and used by the public at a game of football to which the public was invited and required to pay an admission fee for the profit of said association; that the stand, designed to support 5,000 spectators, collapsed from inherent and discoverable weakness when put to its intended use when occupied by less than 3,000 persons. At the trial both parties introduced testimony, and the court without, so far as the record discloses, assigning reasons, directed a verdict for defendants. Judgment was entered on the verdict.

Plaintiff, appellant, contends that the case should have been submitted to the jury. Defendants make three contentions. They are (1) that the plaintiff has in any event no right of action against these or any of these defendants; (2) that plaintiff has not shown that defendants were guilty of any negligence; (3) that, if the circumstances made out a prima facie case of negligent construction of the stand, the undisputed testimony for defendants establishes the fact of the exercise of due care on the part of defendants to render the premises safe.

And, first, as to the parties defendant, they

[116 N.W. 625]

are the voluntary association and its officers, of whom defendant Baird is one, filling the position of graduate director. The active members of the association are the undergraduates and alumni who contribute money, with an associate membership of business men. Defendant Pipp is the person employed by the association to erect, and who did erect, the stand. The theory of defendants is: ‘Mr. Baird, as agent of the board of regents, was authorized by Regent Fletcher to put up the bleacher. He did so, had it inspected, and the board of regents had it inspected. Not only does...