Case Name: MECHAY v. CITY OF DETROIT
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1961-11-30
Citations: 364 Mich. 576
Docket Number: Docket No. 56, Calendar No. 48,557
Parties: MECHAY v. CITY OF DETROIT.
Judges: Black, Edwards, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred with Souris, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 364
Pages: 576–591

Head Matter:
MECHAY v. CITY OF DETROIT.
1. Municipal Corporations — Street Light Poles — Repair—Nuisance — Statutes.
Whether or not city maintained a nuisance by not keeping a street light pole in repair is not determined, although suggested, in action by employee of painting contractor for injuries sustained when pole broke as plaintiff was painting top of the pole, where liability is planted squarely on defendant city’s breach of its statutory duty to “keep in reasonable repair, so that they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel, all public highways, streets, bridges, sidewalks, crosswalks, and eulverts that are within their jurisdiction” (CLS 1956, § 242.1; CL 1948, § 242.3).
2. Same — Repair op Streets — Statutes.
Statutorily imposed duty of eity to keep in reasonable repair all public highways and streets within its jurisdiction so they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel defines the standard by which the duty is measured and does not constitute a restriction upon the persons to whom the duty is owed (CL 1948, § 242.3).
3. Same — Repair op Streets — Proximate Cause op Injury.
The breach of the duty of a eity to keep its highways and streets within its jurisdiction in good repair creates a liability to any person or persons injured by reason of the municipality’s breach (CLS 1956, § 242.1; CL 1948, § 242.3).
4. Same — Street Light Pole — Breach op Duty to Repair — Injured Painter.
Plaintiff who was injured when street light pole broke while he was painting its top, under contract with the city for such service, held, included among persons entitled to recover from city for bodily injuries sustained by reason of defendant city’s breach of its statutory duty to keep its street in good repair (CLS 1956, § 242.1; CL 1948, § 242.3).
Dethmers, C. J., and Carr and Kelly, JJ., dissenting.
References for Points in Headnotes
25 Am Jur, Highways §§ 348, 349.
Appeal from Wayne; Gilmore (Horace W.), J.
Submitted January 10,1961.
(Docket No. 56, Calendar No. 48,557.)
Decided November 30, 1961.
Be-hearing denied March 15, 1962.
Case by Jemil Mechay against the City of Detroit,, a municipal corporation, for personal injuries sustained by him while painting street light pole on October 21, 1956. Declaration dismissed on motion. Plaintiff appeals.
Beversed and remanded.
Max M. Marston and Harold Helper, for plaintiff.
Nathaniel H. Goldstich, Corporation Counsel, Alfred Saioaya and Andrew F. Valenti, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for defendant.

Opinion:
Souris, J.
Plaintiff, under contract with defendant city of Detroit, was painting the top of a street light pole when the pole broke, throwing him to the ground. His amended declaration for damages was dismissed on motion and this appeal was taken to review that dismissal.
Plaintiff's amended declaration contains 3 counts. He alleged, in the first, common-law negligence; in the second, breach of a statutory duty; and in the-third, breach of the common-law duty to maintain a. safe place to work. No claims are made in this appeal by plaintiff with reference to dismissal of his-first or third counts. However, he presents 2 questions, both of which apparently relate to count 2.. By 1 of his questions, he suggests that count 2 sounds in tort for maintenance of a nuisance as to which the defendant municipality is not immune from liability. We find it unnecessary to consider this-question for the reason that count 2 is planted squarely upon defendant's statutory duty to maintain its public highways, streets, bridges, sidewalks, crosswalks, and culverts in reasonable repair. CL. 1948, § 242.3 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.593). Onr review, therefore, will be limited to consideration of the applicability of the duty imposed by that statute to street light poles and the availability to plaintiff of the remedy provided by CLS 1956, § 242.1 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.591) for breach of that statutory duty.
CL 1948, §242.3 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.593) provides, in part:
"It is hereby made the duty of townships, villages, cities, or corporations to keep in reasonable repair, so that they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel, all public highways, streets, bridges, sidewalks, crosswalks, and culverts that are within their jurisdiction."
In Rufner v. City of Traverse City, 296 Mich 204, and Cabana v. City of Hart, 327 Mich 287 (19 ALR 2d 333), we ruled that CL 1948, § 242.3 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.593), requires cities to maintain in reasonable repair electric street light poles as part of their duty to keep in reasonable repair streets, highways, sidewalks, et cetera, so that they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. The argument is made by defendant that whether or not street light poles are required to be maintained in repair by that statute, the duty to do so does not extend to anyone except travelers and, since at the time of injury plaintiff was not traveling* 'upon the adjoining street, defendant's statutory duty did not extend to him.
We disagree. The reference to public travel contained in the statute quoted above is not a restriction upon the persons to whom the duty is owed but, rather, defines the standard by which the duty is measured: "to keep in reasonable repair, so that they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel."
This conclusion is supported by tbe provisions of CLS 1956, §242.1 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev §9.591), which creates the cause of action for breach of the statutory duty:
"Any person or persons sustaining bodily injury upon any of the public highways or streets in this State, by reason of neglect to keep such public highways or streets, and all bridges, sidewalks, crosswalks and culverts on the same in reasonable repair, and in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel by the township, village, city or corporation whose corporate authority extends over such public highway, street, bridge, sidewalk, crosswalk or culvert, and whose duty it is to keep the same in reasonable repair, such township, village, city or corporation shall be liable to and shall pay to the person or persons so injured or disabled, and to any person suffering damages by reason of such injury, just damages, to be recovered in an action of trespass on the case before any court of competent jurisdiction."
Liability is imposed upon municipalities in favor of "any person or persons" injured by reason of the municipality's breach of its statutory duty. We have not squarely held that the benefits of this section of the statute are limited only to travelers, nor do we see any ground upon which we should do so now. The opinion in Beaudin v. Bay City, 136 Mich 333 (4 Ann Cas 248, 16 Am Neg Rep 108), reasonably may be construed to suggest that the statutory cause of action is limited only to travelers lawfully upon the street, because it refers to cases outside Michigan which had so construed somewhat similar statutes and because the Court determined that the child plaintiff was entitled to recover so long as he was not unlawfully using the street. To the extent that there is any inference in that case inconsistent with this opinion, it is expressly overruled.
Reversed and remanded. Costs to plaintiff.
Black, Edwards, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred with Souris, J.