TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Davis v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

William H. H. Davis v. The Michigan Bell Telephone Company

Davis v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 28 N.W. 108 (Mich. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 6, 1886
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
28 N.W. 10861 Mich. 3071886 Mich. LEXIS 898
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Negligence — Injury caused by defective sidewalk — Defendant held not responsible, for reasons stated in head-note- Defendant opened a telephone station in a store in a village, and employed the owner as agent, allowing him a percentage on the receipts as com.pensation for his services, but had no control of the premises. The “ground wire” was attached to an iron rod driven into the earth at ¡the inner edge of the sidewalk beside the store window, some months ■before, for telegraph purposes, at which time a plank in the sidewalk was removed, and when replaced was not fastened down, and, by reason of the rod and wire, projected a few inches into the street beyond ■the outer edge of the sidewalk. Defendant’s employees, in making said attachment, removed this loose plank, and replaced it in its for- . uner position. Some time afterwards plaintiff, in alighting from his ¡buggy, stepped upon the end of the plank, which flew up, striking ' (him violently in the face and injuring him quite severely. • Held, that defendant was not responsible for the accident. 1 It did ■nothing to create the danger, and had no duty to perform in regard to ¡a sidewalk on premises over which it had no authority or.supervision; •and that any principle that would impose liability in such a case would hold an individual liable for future mischief from any plank ■or other thing which he may intentionally or casually.have disturbed, ¡and put back again where he found it.
Summary
Error to Kent. (Montgomery, J.) Case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are ¡stated in the head-note.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Campbell, C. J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for a personal' injury, which is charged in the declaration as the result of defendant’s carelessness in taking up a sidewalk plank, and not fastening it, whereby, when it was stepped on, it flew up- and injured plaintiff.

The facts were that defendant set up its instruments in-the drug store of one Loomis, in the village of Sparta, Kent county, and he became its agent. The wires passed into the store at the inner end of the sidewalk, where- there was an iron post just below the level of the plank,, to which an attachment was made for some purpose connected with the-working of the instruments. This post was already there-when the arrangements were made. To reach it a plank had to be lifted up, which was already loose, and it was put back, and left in the same condition, with, the outer end projecting somewhat beyond the other plank.

In September, 1883, some months after the wires were fastened, plaintiff drove up beside the- walk, and stepped upon the end of this loose plank, which flew up- in his face,, broke his nose, and otherwise injured him..

Defendant did not own or control the store,and had nothing to do with maintaining the sidewalk in order. The walk was-left by defendant in the same condition in which it was found.. Under such circumstances it is impossible to hold defendant responsible for the accident. It did nothing to create the-danger, and had no duty to perform in regard to- a walk on premises over which it had no authority or supervision. The court below so ruled, and there was no error in the ruling. Any principle that would impose liability in such a case-would hold any individual liable for future mischief from, any plank or other thing which he may intentionally or casually have disturbed, and put back again where he found, it» The doctrine has no foundation in reason»

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list