Teipel v. Hilsendegen

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: [44 Mich. 462] COOLEY, J.
• Citation: Teipel v. Hilsendegen, 44 Mich. 461, 7 N.W. 82 (Mich. 1880)
• Decision Date: 27 October 1880
• Parties: TEIPEL v. HILSENDEGEN.

7 N.W. 82

44 Mich. 461

TEIPEL v. HILSENDEGEN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 27, 1880

In an action for damages for negligence, an absence of contributory negligence should be shown, but it is not necessary that such absence should be shown beyond question.

Error to superior court of Detroit.

Alfred Russell, for plaintiff in error.

Griffin & Dickinson, for defendant in error.

COOLEY, J.

When one sues to recover damages for a negligent injury, the gravamen of his complaint is that he has been damnified by the wrongful and negligent action of the defendant without having contributed thereto by negligent conduct of his own. The absence of contributory negligence is therefore a part of his case, and it is quite proper to say that he should show that he acted with due care. Le Baron v. Joslin, 41 Mich. 313. But this only requires of him that he should put in evidence the facts and circumstances attending the injury and if these show negligent conduct in the defendant from which the injury followed as a direct and proximate consequence, and do not show any contributory negligence in the plaintiff, a prima facie case for a jury is made out. He cannot be required to go further than this in negativing his own fault, and in many cases where there are no eye-witnesses, it would be impossible.

Nor is it necessary that the absence of contributory negligence should be shown beyond cavil or question. If the circumstances are such that reasonable minds might...