Steele v. Commercial Milling Co.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 5674.,5674. |
| Citation | 84 ALR 278,50 F.2d 1037 |
| Parties | STEELE v. COMMERCIAL MILLING CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
H. C. Milligan, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
James Turner, of Detroit, Mich. (Angell, Turner, Dyer & Meek, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and HICKENLOOPER, Circuit Judges.
Suit for damages for personal injuries. Gratiot street in Detroit at the point where appellant was injured runs east and west. Two street car tracks are located on it. The street is of concrete surfaced with asphalt except that the paving between the car tracks is of granite blocks. On each side of the street and between the curb and the sidewalk is a grass plat. Appellant lived in Cincinnati but operated trucks between Cincinnati and Detroit. At the time he was injured he was standing on the grass plat on the south side of the street engaged in conversation with one Perry. His business there was to buy tires for a truck. Appellee's truck with a five-ton trailer attached and driven by one Morkowitz was traveling eastwardly upon the street at the rate of 10 to 15 miles per hour. A Chevrolet coupé and other cars were parked along the curb on the south side so that, in order to pass, Morkowitz was driving with the inside wheels of his truck upon the asphalt and the outside ones upon the granite block pavement of the car line. Both truck and trailer were loaded but the trailer was not loaded quite to capacity. The trailer was coupled to the truck by a steel drawbar fitted into drawheads and held by coupling pins. The drawheads were located at the centers of the rear end of the truck and the front end of the trailer respectively. The trailer had two safety chains attached to its front end, one on each side of the coupling and near the outside of the trailer. These chains were connected to the trailer by eyebolts driven through the frame of the trailer and riveted. The chains extended crosswise from the front of the trailer to the rear of the truck and were there attached by hooks operating in eyebolts. At the point of the accident the trailer became detached, made a sudden left turn, then a right turn, crashed into the coupé, and shoved it about 25 feet along the street and over the curb. The trailer crossed the curb and struck and injured appellant.
As designed the pull of the trailer is upon the drawbar only. It was not intended that the chains should ordinarily draw the trailer. They are safety factors only. After the accident it was discovered that the drawbar had become detached from both the truck and trailer and was found in the street. The coupling pin attaching it to the truck was broken in two places and the drawbar's connection with the trailer was also broken. It is obvious that when these breaks occurred the stress of the trailer fell upon the chains. Upon inspection an eyebolt attaching one of the chains to the trailer was found pulled entirely through the frame of the trailer and a portion of the frame itself had been pulled out. The eyebolt upon the opposite side of the trailer had been pulled into the frame and the connecting hook had been pulled straight. It is clear that the accident happened because the chains and connections had failed to hold. If, after the drawbar had broken, the chains had pulled the load no accident would have happened.
The declaration alleges various acts of negligence. Appellant, however, upon the trial abandoned all of them except the matter of the chains. Counsel said: "I might say, Your Honor (to interrupt), that I waive all grounds of negligence except the failure to have chains on, — I rely entirely on that point." Counsel thereupon introduced Act No. 8 of the Statutes of Michigan, Public Acts, 1919, Extra Session. This act had then been repealed by Act 321, Public Acts of 1923, but its substance had been re-enacted with additional provisions and is found at section 4763 of the Compiled Laws of Michigan for 1929. This section is set out in the margin.1
The declaration alleges a failure of the defendant (appellee) "to comply with all the laws of the State of Michigan respecting the operation of motor vehicles upon the highways of the State." This allegation is too general in its nature to constitute good pleading, but it was not challenged nor was any bill of particulars or more specific statement requested. There was the plea of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George v. Stanfield
...Francklyn, 120 U.S. 747, 7 S.Ct. 757, 30 L.Ed. 825; Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293; Steele v. Commercial Milling Co., 6 Cir., 50 F.2d 1037, 84 A.L.R. 278. This principle was recently applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304......
-
Miller v. Lucas, U-H
...Our opinion finds support in the following cases having to a considerable degree similar factual situations: Steele v. Commercial Milling Co., 6 Cir., 50 F.2d 1037, 84 A.L.R. 278; Barango v. E. L. Hedstrom Coal Co., 12 Ill.App.2d 118, 138 N.E.2d 829; Bidleman v. Wright, 175 Ohio St. 405, 19......
-
Murry v. Advanced Asphalt Co.
...47 O.S.1981 § 14-106, supra. Failure to have chains of such strength also constitutes negligence per se. See, Steele v. Commercial Milling Co., 50 F.2d 1037, 1038 (6th Cir.1931) (decided under Michigan law) (absolute obligation to have chains of sufficient strength). See also, U-Haul Co. v.......
-
Solomonson v. Melling
...Miller v. Lucas, 267 N.C. 1, 147 S.E.2d 537 (1966); Bidleman v. Wright, 175 Ohio St. 405, 195 N.E.2d 904 (1964); Steele v. Commercial Milling Co., 50 F.2d 1037 (6th Cir.1931). Under the uncontroverted facts of this case, reasonable minds could not reasonably differ on such negligence being ......