VanNett v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Co.

Decision Date06 June 1939
Docket NumberNo. 18.,18.
Citation286 N.W. 216,289 Mich. 212
PartiesVANNETT et al. v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Action by Ralph R. Vannett and another against Michigan Public Service Company for loss of building which was destroyed by fire allegedly caused by faulty electric wiring. From a judgment for the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Oceana County; Earl C. Pugsley, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

K. B. Matthews, of Ludington, for appellant.

William J. Branstrom, and J. Donald Murphy, both of Fremont, and Frank E. Wetmore, of Hart, for appellees.

SHARPE, Justice.

Plaintiffs were the owners of a garage and hardware building in the village of New Era, Michigan, which was completely destroyed by fire during the evening of October 25, 1936. Plaintiffs' building was located on the east side of Main street facing west and immediately south of a building known as the Postema building. There was an 8 or 10 foot space between the two buildings. The fire started in the northeast part of the Postema building at about 9:30 p.m., and soon spread over and consumed both buildings.

The Postema building where the fire originated was a wood frame structure sheathed with one inch of hardwood covered with sheet metal. It was lighted by electricity furnished by the defendant company. Along the north side of the Postema building was a public street intersecting at right angles with Main street and known as First street. Along this street, running east and west were the service wires of defendant company. Approximately 140 feet east of the northwest corner of the Postema building was a transformer and from this transformer service wires ran westward and parallel to the Postema building to a pole about 8 feet forth of the northwest corner of the Postema building. From the pole above mentioned, three No. 8 weather-proofed service wires of the defendant company ran to the side of the Postema building for a distance of approximately 70 feet to a point on the building just above the freight door. About 9:30 p.m., a fire started in the north rear portion of the Postema building destroying that building and then spreading to and destroying the building of plaintiffs.

It is the claim of plaintiffs that defendant company's three service wires ran nearly parallel to the Postema building and then turned a right angle and ran through the wall of the building through small brittle porcelain tubes into and through the wood sheathing and metal siding; that at the point where the wires entered the building defendant company had not installed a post or wall bracket to take up the strain and hold the weight of the service wires; that with the swaying of the wires the porcelain tubes rubbed and grated against the sheet-metal siding which caused a ‘short circuiting,’ sending a heavy flow of electricity into the sheet-metal covering the building; that the wires became hot and red at the point of contact; that the red hot wires heated the sheet-metal which in turn ignited the wood structure of the building; and that as a result of the faulty wiring, the two story building and contents owned by plaintiffs were totally destroyed.

Defendant company admits that there was no proper inspection of the wiring since its installation, but contends taht there was an entire lack of proof to show that improper installation or failure to inspect caused the fire; that the verdict was based upon conjecture; and that the damages allowed were excessive.

The cause was tried before the court without a jury and a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs for the sum of $12,500 and interest in the sum of $1,092, said interest being computed from the date of the fire. The trial court based this judgment upon the following finding of facts: that there were no supporting brackets on the outside of the building; that there was no servicing or inspection of these wires by the defendant company since 1929; that the defendant company could inspect the equipment at any time during business hours; that the entire system was controlled and operated by defendant company except that defendant company delegated to Ben Postema the responsibility for winding the time clock which regulated certain street lights; that paragraph 7 of the declaration which contains the following allegations was established by a preponderance of the evidence:

‘That at the point where said electric service wires entered said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Dauer's Estate v. Zabel
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • October 1, 1969
    ...89 N.W.2d 529; Eglash v. Detroit Institute of Technology (1965), 375 Mich. 592, 595, 134 N.W.2d 710.3 Vannett v. Michigan Public Service Co. (1939), 289 Mich. 212, 218, 286 N.W. 216; Rose v. Paint Manufacturers, Inc. (1945), 311 Mich. 428, 429, 18 N.W.2d 881; Marion v. Savin (1946), 315 Mic......
  • Olson v. Cass County Elec. Co-op., Inc., CO-OPERATIV
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 28, 1959
    ...Polk v. City of Los Angeles, supra; Holmes v. Southern California Edison Co., 78 Cal.App.2d 43, 177 P.2d 32; Vannett v. Michigan Public Service Co., 289 Mich. 212, 286 N.W. 216; Dansbery v. Northern States Power Co., 188 Wis. 586, 206 N.W. 882. The duty to inspect is not confined to areas o......
  • American Cas. Co., In re, s. 86-1728
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 8, 1988
    ...See also Detroit Indep. Sprinkler Co. v. Plywood Prods. Corp., 311 Mich. 226, 18 N.W.2d 387 (1945); Vannett v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Co., 289 Mich. 212, 286 N.W. 216, 218 (1939). Brady argues that its abandonment of the contract was fully justified because the City had already materially brea......
  • Grimes v. King
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 14, 1945
    ...recently summarized in Eagan v. Edwards, 294 Mich. 260, 293 N.W. 641, 642, by the following quotation from Vannett v. Michigan Public Service Co., 289 Mich. 212, 218, 286 N.W. 216: “‘We have repeatedly said in cases tried without a jury, that the trial judge is the trier of the facts and ma......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT