Stebbins v. Keene Tp.

• Decision Date: 14 January 1885
• Citation: 22 N.W. 37,55 Mich. 552
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: STEBBINS v. TOWNSHIP OF KEENE.

22 N.W. 37

55 Mich. 552

STEBBINS v. TOWNSHIP OF KEENE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 14, 1885

Error to Ionia.

Morse, Wilson & Trowbridge and Lemuel Clute, for plaintiff.

Webster, Davis & Millard and Mitchell, Bell &amp McGarry, for defendant and appellant.

SHERWOOD, J.

This is an action on the case to recover damages for an injury sustained while crossing a bridge over a culvert, with a traction-engine, in the public highway, in the township of Keene, in the county of Ionia, on the second day of October 1882. The bridge was built in 1877, and was about 14 feet wide, and supported by four stringers, three of which were rock elm, and the other beech. The bridge was examined in June preceding the accident, and the beech stringer was then put in new. This highway had been in use 30 years, and was one of the main traveled thoroughfares in the township. The plaintiff came from the west, on a down grade till he reached the bridge, with the engine, and a tank-wagon, partly filled with water, attached. A pair of horses and steam were used in hauling the engine and tank-wagon, and the plaintiff occupied a seat by the side of the boiler, and was driving the team when the traction-engine came upon the bridge, breaking the south stringers, near the west bank, dropping that side of the bridge about 30 inches. When the plaintiff felt the bridge going down, he attempted to escape by jumping from his seat, and in doing so his left foot slipped off the foot-rest, caught in the traction-chain and was drawn into a cog-wheel, and so injured as to render amputation below the knee necessary. No steam was used in moving the engine when it came upon the bridge; the horses being sufficient to move and control it on the down grade.

Upon the trial the plaintiff's claim was that the bridge was not reasonably safe and fit for travel, and that the officers whose duty it was to see that a safe bridge was provided, of sufficient strength and durability for the passage of the plaintiff's threshing-machine and engine, and kept in repair, did not exercise ordinary care and diligence in the performance of such duty, after due notice of the defects complained of, and that he received his injuries in consequence of such official neglect and want of reasonable care. The defense was that the bridge was reasonably safe and fit for travel, and was of sufficient strength for such loads as it was designed to sustain and ordinarily passed over it; that it would not have given way but for the carelessness and negligence of the plaintiff in suddenly driving thereon close to one side with his extraordinary load propelled by steam. Upon these two theories the case was tried, resulting in a verdict of $4,000 for the plaintiff, and the defendant brings error.

There does not seem to be any serious contest as to how the injury occurred, nor as to the duty of the township in a case where its officers have in their charge and care the construction and maintenance of bridges, nor as to the liability of the township if the proper officers carelessly or negligently omit or fail to perform such duty after having sufficient knowledge or notice of the defective condition of a bridge, if injury ensues. Neither do I think it can be seriously or successfully maintained that it is not the duty of the township, after bridges have been built, to maintain them of sufficient strength and durability to secure the safe passage of loads as heavy as was that of the plaintiff in this case.

The duty required of township officers in the premises, and the knowledge or notice necessary to require them to rebuild or make necessary repairs, and the character of the negligence by them, raising a liability on the part of the township, were very forcibly discussed and clearly presented by Chief Justice GRAVES in Medina v. Perkins, 48 Mich. 67; S.C. 11 N.W. 810. The case was, in many of its features, very similar to the present.

That the bridge in this case was defective, I think very clearly appears from the undisputed testimony, giving the result of the examinations made after this injury occurred. It is claimed, however, that the township officers had no sufficient knowledge or notice of the defect; that actual notice of such defect to the officers was required, and the lapse of reasonable time to make repairs, after the same was received, to create liability on the part of the township. Upon this subject Chief Justice GRAVES says: "A township must know and act through its officers, and the mode and range of choice of these officers are prescribed by law, and it would be outrunning the constitution, and the course of legislation under it, to expect greater qualifications than the average of township communities possess. Through its officers a township may know of the existence of a defect in a way or bridge, and where such knowledge is gained, the township may become liable for negligence in not repairing. On the other hand, a defect may exist and be unknown, and the town still be liable, on the ground that the prime fault consists in being ignorant; it being a clear principle that a want of knowledge may, in given circumstances imply a...