Case Name: MENARD v. CITY OF BAY CITY
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1897-09-23
Citations: 114 Mich. 450
Docket Number: 
Parties: MENARD v. CITY OF BAY CITY.
Judges: Montgomery and Moore, JJ., concurred with Hooker, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 450–453

Head Matter:
MENARD v. CITY OF BAY CITY.
Defective Sidewalks — Notice—Question for Jury.
Plaintiff, while passing over a sidewalk in the defendant city, was tripped by a loose section of the planking, and sustained injuries for which she brought suit. Upon the trial she produced witnesses who testified that, at the place where the accident occurred, a board in the walk was split diagonally from one end, so as to leave a pointed piece of the plank, too short to reach both stringers, fastened only at one end, and liable to fly up when stepped on at the outer end, which' projected nearly a foot over the edge of the stringer. One witness testified that he knew that the split had existed for a month before the accident, because he had tripped there one night himself. On cross-examination this witness stated that no one, who did not know that the board was loose, would notice it; but there'were other witnesses who'testified that the defect was plainly visible. The circuit judge directed a verdict for defendant, on the ground that the defect was not such a one as would attract attention, and that the city was not negligent in not discovering it. Held, that the question of notice should have gone to the jury. Grant, J., and Long, O. J., dissenting.
Error to Bay; Kelley, J., presiding.
Submitted June 18, 1897.
Decided September 23, 1897.
Case by Rosella Menard against the city of Bay City for personal injuries. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Van Kleech & Anneke, for appellant.
U. JR. Loranger, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hooker, J.
The plaintiff appeals from a verdict -in favor of the defendant, rendered by direction of the court. There was evidence tending to show that she was injured by a fall upon a sidewalk at a place where a board was split diagonally from one end, the shorter piece running to a point, making it too short to reach both stringers (of which there were but two in the walk) as it lay. Witnesses testified that this, split had existed for some time, but it was contended that it was not such a defect as to attract attention, and that the city was not negligent in not discovering it, and the court so held. There is testimony that this split was obvious, and that the only nails in it were near the wider end; that the stringers were almost a foot from the edge of the walk: She was tripped by a companion stepping upon the projecting end, which raised the narrow end of the plank. It was shown that the plank was loose, and had been so for a month, and had tripped one of the witnesses before. This witness testified that the board was broken apart, and had lain there for a month before the accident. Other witnesses testify that the defect was plainly visible.
We are of the opinion that the questions of negligence and notice should not have been taken from the jury.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Montgomery and Moore, JJ., concurred with Hooker, J.