Vergin v. City of Saginaw
| Decision Date | 29 January 1901 |
| Citation | 125 Mich. 499,84 N.W. 1075 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | VERGIN v. CITY OF SAGINAW. |
Error to circuit court, Saginaw county; Eugene Wilbur, Judge.
Action by Mary Vergin against the city of Saginaw. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Henry E. Naegely, for appellant.
F. E Emerick, for appellee.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment of $730 for injuries received on a defective sidewalk. The plaintiff at the time of her injury was a married woman, 45 years of age, living with her husband and family at 1023 Bond street N., between Bristol and Brewster. Bond street runs east and west, and is paved with cedar blocks and with stone curbing. Bristol street is the street just north of plaintiff's house, and runs east and west, and intersects Bond. Brewster street is the first street south of Bristol. Then there are Miller, Throop, and Clinton streets south in the order named. Porter street runs parallel with Bond, and is one block east of it, and intersects all the streets named, the same as Bond. A Mrs Fellows lives at the corner of Porter and Clinton streets and on the evening of April 6th plaintiff, with her daughter who is a music teacher, left home for the purpose of going to Mrs. Fellows' house. The corner of Porter and Clinton streets is about four blocks from where plaintiff lives. It is three blocks south and one block east. The plaintiff frequently passed over this walk during the previous summer, fall, and winter in going to the grocery and meat market. She knew the condition of the walk on which she was injured. She was interested in the walk, and in the summer of 1898 she notified Shefnecker, the alderman of the ward, to have this particular place where she was injured repaired. The walk in front of plaintiff's house and south of there and at the point of injury was about four feet wide. The distance from the outside edge of the walk to the street curb was about six feet, and both the walk and this ground between this curb and the walk were covered with snow and ice. Between the sidewalk proper and the curb of the street there is a space of several feet in that block. There were no trees between the sidewalk and the curb, and there were no obstructions of any kind, and there were no holes in the space between the sidewalk and the curb in that block at the time plaintiff was hurt. It was smooth and level between the sidewalk and the curb, except as the snow scraper had thrown up ridges of snow on either side, and except in one place where there was a ditch at the corner of plaintiff's walk extending out to the curb. The snow on each side of the path was probably a foot and a half deep. Plaintiff and her daughter left home the night of the accident for the purpose of going to Mrs. Fellows' house. They left the house, and walked to the street side, when they turned south. The daughter walked ahead in this narrow oath, the mother following her. When they had gone about 10 feet, the plaintiff stepped into a hole, and fell, and injured herself. The hole in which she fell was filled with snow and slush, so that the hole was concealed, and the plaintiff could not see it. The snow had not been cleaned off the walk on this lot when she was injured. The walk on the south side of Bristol street between Bond and Porter streets in April and the spring of 1899, and the walk on Porter street from Bristol to Clinton at this time, were good and safe for travel. Defendant's counsel contends that on this testimony it should be held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. The argument is that the plaintiff, knowing the defect, was at fault in negligently using the defective sidewalk. That the only excuse which she offers is that she did not have the defect in mind at the time of the injury, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial