Court Opinion

ID: 9849277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:37:32.004864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:13.445221
License: Public Domain

T. G. Kavanagh, P. J.
(dissenting). I do not agree that this action involves a nuisance having its origin in negligence; consequently, I would hold that contributory negligence is not available as a defense. In Denny v. Garavaglia (1952), 333 Mich 317, the Supreme Court quoted from Beckwith v. Town of Stratford (1942), 129 Conn 506 (29 A2d 775), where that court recognized three classes of nuisance: (1) where the nuisance results from conduct which is in itself a violation of law, (2) where the creator of the nuisance intends to bring about the conditions which are found to be nuisance, (3) where the nuisance arises out of negligence. Contributory negligence is a defense only as to the third class. In my view, the facts in the case at bar bring it within the first class rather than the third. Defendants’ conduct in erecting and maintaining the signs was in itself a violation of law. This is unlike the situation in Benny where plaintiff’s claim was not that it was unlawful for defendant to repair the road, but rather that he did so in a negligent manner.
I would reverse for trial.