Shaw v. Township of Saline
| Decision Date | 07 June 1897 |
| Citation | 113 Mich. 342,71 N.W. 642 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHAW v. SALINE TP. |
Error to circuit court, Washtenaw county; Edward D. Kinne, Judge.
Action by Clifford R. Shaw against the township of Saline. From a judgment on verdict for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Frank E. Jones and Seth C. Randall, for appellant.
Lawrence & Butterfield, for appellee.
This action is brought by the plaintiff to recover damages arising from an injury received on the 24th of January, 1895, within the limits of the defendant township, the place at which the injury occurred being the immediate approach to the bridge over the Saline river. This bridge is within the corporate limits of the village of Saline. The bridge consists of a substantial iron structure, placed on stone abutments, 11 feet above the surface of the water. From the south end of the bridge proper there is an embankment that extends south about 100 feet. At the south abutment of the bridge the top of the embankment is 11 feet above the river. At a distance of 100 feet from the south end of the bridge the approach is 18 feet wide, but as it approaches the bridge it becomes narrower, and next to the abutment it is 13 feet wide. The traveled part of the road near the south end of the bridge is 8 feet in width, and is 6 inches higher in the center than at the sides. From either side of the 8 feet the slope is much steeper. On the day in question the plaintiff was driving a horse belonging to a neighbor, Mrs. Townsend, which she had requested the plaintiff to take to the village of Saline, and have shod. The horse was not shod behind, and had smooth shoes on the front feet. He was 18 or 19 years old, kind and gentle, and blind. The plaintiff had driven and worked the horse before. The road was at the time, as appears by the testimony, slippery and icy. In the center of the road the sleighing was not good, but on either side there was a narrow border of snow and ice. Plaintiff testified, however, that he was driving in the center of the road; that, as the horse came near the bridge, he slipped and went sideways. The horse went down the embankment throwing plaintiff over the embankment, inflicting very serious injuries. The defendant's theory-and there was some testimony tending to sustain it-was that the plaintiff was not keeping to the center of the road, but was on the outside, and that he was in fault in not keeping in the center of the road. Under the instructions which the court gave to the jury, however, it is quite evident that the jury found in accordance with the plaintiff's testimony upon the question of fact.
The principal questions raised on this writ of error are: First was it incumbent upon defendant township to erect and maintain railings and barriers, even though the same were necessary, within the limits of the incorporated village of Saline? second, does the law making it incumbent upon the township to erect and maintain a bridge include the approaches? third, was the plaintiff guilty of such contributory negligence as would bar his recovery as a matter of law? fourth, was the absence of railings or barriers the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff? The general statute for the incorporation of villages, under which the village of Saline was, by the terms of its charter, acting viz. How. Ann. St. � 2853, confers supervision and control of public highways bridges, streets, etc., upon the council, but contains this proviso: "That the bridges within the limits of any village incorporated under this act, in the highways leading into or through said village which have been or shall hereafter be laid out by the commissioner of highways of the township or townships in which said village may be located, or established by any other lawful authority, except the authority of such village, shall be built, controlled and kept in repair by the township or townships in which the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial