Taylor v. Lake Shore & Mich. S.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1881 |
| Citation | 45 Mich. 74,7 N.W. 728 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. L.S. & M.S.R. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
A city was authorized to pass ordinances requiring individuals to clear the ice and snow from sidewalks making them liable to the city for damage resulting from failure, etc. Under this authority an ordinance was adopted requiring the owners and occupants of lots to prevent the sidewalks adjacent to the property owned or occupied by them from becoming obstructed by snow, ice, or other encumbrance. Held, that an individual injured by reason of a failure to comply with this ordinance could not maintain an action against the individual whose neglect had caused the injury.
Error to superior court of Detroit.
Griffin & Dickinson and Henry M. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
Ashley Pond, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff sues the railroad company to recover compensation for an injury suffered by her in consequence of slipping and falling upon ice which had formed on a sidewalk in front of premises occupied by defendant in the city of Monroe, and which the defendant had failed to remove as required by law. It is not claimed that any such action would lie at the common law, and the right of recovery is supposed to arise from certain state and municipal legislation.
The state legislation in question is the general act for the incorporation of cities, passed in 1873, under which the city of Monroe is now organized. Chapter 12 of this act relates to the sidewalks. Section 1 gives the city council control of all sidewalks, with power to construct and maintain the same and charge the expense thereof upon the lots and premises adjacent to and abutting upon such walks. Section 2 empowers the council to require the owners and occupants of adjacent lots to construct and maintain sidewalks, and section 3 is as follows: "The council shall also have power to cause and require the owners and occupants of any lot or premises to remove all snow and ice from the sidewalks in front of or adjacent to such lot or premises and to keep the same free from obstructions, encroachments, filth, and other nuisances."
Section 4 provides that if any owner or occupant shall fail to perform any duty required by the council in respect to sidewalks, the council may cause the same to be performed and levy a special assessment to meet the expenses on the lot or premises adjacent to and abutting on the sidewalk.
Section 6 is as follows: "If any owner, occupant or person in charge of any lot or premises, shall neglect to repair any sidewalk in front of or adjacent to such premises, or to remove any snow or ice therefrom, or to keep the same free from obstructions and encumbrances, in accordance with the requirements of the ordinances and regulations of the council, he shall be liable to the city for the amount of all damages which shall be recovered against the city for any accident or injury occurring by reason of such neglect." Gen.Laws 1873, pp. 244, 325, 326.
Acting under the authority conferred by this act of the city council adopted an ordinance whereby it was provided that the owner or occupant of any house or building, or person entitled to the possession of any vacant lot, or person in charge of any church or other public building, or any street, alley or public space, shall not permit the sidewalk and gutter adjoining the same to be obstructed by snow, ice, filth, dirt or other encumbrance, and when ice is formed on any sidewalk and gutter, such owners, occupants, or persons having charge or entitled to possession of property adjoining, as above provided, shall within 24 hours after the same has formed remove the same or cause sand, sawdust or ashes to be strewn thereon....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...43 S. W. 431; Railroad v. Wood (Ky.) 52 S. W. 796; Atkinson v. Newcastle, etc., Co., L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 441; Taylor v. Railroad, 45 Mich. 74, 7 N. W. 728, 40 Am. Rep. 457. In Fath v. Railroad, supra, the question of the power of a city to create "a civil duty enforceable at common law" was ......
-
State v. Stobie
...if the purpose of the enactment is to confer a private right in addition to inflicting a punishment." In Taylor v. Lake Shore, etc., Railroad, 45 Mich. 74, 7 N. W. 728, 40 Am. Rep. 457, Cooley, J., in speaking of the test to be applied in determining whether the party injured may have an ac......
-
Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Detroit
...the public duty also was intended to benefit private individuals, a private action can be maintained. Taylor v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R Co, 45 Mich. 74, 77, 7 N.W. 728 (1881). Justice Cooley, writing for the Court, explained that "[t]he nature of the duty and the benefits to be acc......
-
The State ex rel. McNamee v. Stobie
...otherwise, however, if the purpose of the enactment is to confer a private right in addition to inflicting punishment." In Taylor v. Railroad, 45 Mich. 74, 7 N.W. 728, Cooley, in speaking of the test to be applied in determining whether the party injured may have an action at common law, sa......