Brady v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Brady v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.

188 N.W.2d 58, 31 Mich. App. 498, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2111

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 23, 1971

DocketDocket 8331

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 188 N.W.2d 58 (Brady v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brady v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., 188 N.W.2d 58, 31 Mich. App. 498, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2111 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Levin, J.

Plaintiff, Joanne Brady, stepped ont of an automobile onto ground which appeared to her to be solid, but was, in fact, faulty. She sank into a hole up to her chest.

There was testimony that the defendant gas company had been digging in the area for about a week several weeks before the accident, but the witnesses were uncertain whether the digging occurred at the place where the plaintiff suffered her injuries or at a short distance, less than 50 feet, from it. The trial judge, who sat without a jury, found that the plaintiff did not preponderate, not because he disbelieved the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, but because he concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had dug at the precise spot where the accident happened.

We are left with the definite and firm conviction that the judge made a mistake in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that her injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant in digging and not restoring the ground and in failing to make the area again reasonably safe for use. 1

*500 In the light of the entire record we do not wish to preclude the defendant, who offered no proofs on liability, only on damages, from controverting plaintiff’s claim, and, accordingly, we do not confine the inquiry on remand to the amount of plaintiff’s damages.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial. Costs to abide the event.

All concurred.

1

GCR 1963, 517.1; 2 Honigman and Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), pp 596, 597, authors’ comments.

We observed in Humphrey v. Swan (1968), 14 Mich App 683, 686:

*500 “Appellate courts traditionally exercise a broader review of judges’ decisions than of jury verdicts.

“ ‘A jury’s verdict-view of facts is entitled to an even higher degree of appellate respect than is a judge’s verdict-view of the same facts, learned though the judge may be in law. For reasons known well to students of American history, a finding of fact by “the twelvers” is more apt to be sound than that of one man.’ Schneider v. Pomerville (1957), 348 Mich 49, 54.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Levin, J.

Plaintiff, Joanne Brady, stepped ont of an automobile onto ground which appeared to her to be solid, but was, in fact, faulty. She sank into a hole up to her chest.

There was testimony that the defendant gas company had been digging in the area for about a week several weeks before the accident, but the witnesses were uncertain whether the digging occurred at the place where the plaintiff suffered her injuries or at a short distance, less than 50 feet, from it. The trial judge, who sat without a jury, found that the plaintiff did not preponderate, not because he disbelieved the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, but because he concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had dug at the precise spot where the accident happened.

We are left with the definite and firm conviction that the judge made a mistake in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that her injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant in digging and not restoring the ground and in failing to make the area again reasonably safe for use. 1

*500 In the light of the entire record we do not wish to preclude the defendant, who offered no proofs on liability, only on damages, from controverting plaintiff’s claim, and, accordingly, we do not confine the inquiry on remand to the amount of plaintiff’s damages.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial. Costs to abide the event.

All concurred.

1

GCR 1963, 517.1; 2 Honigman and Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), pp 596, 597, authors’ comments.

We observed in Humphrey v. Swan (1968), 14 Mich App 683, 686:

*500 “Appellate courts traditionally exercise a broader review of judges’ decisions than of jury verdicts.

“ ‘A jury’s verdict-view of facts is entitled to an even higher degree of appellate respect than is a judge’s verdict-view of the same facts, learned though the judge may be in law. For reasons known well to students of American history, a finding of fact by “the twelvers” is more apt to be sound than that of one man.’ Schneider v. Pomerville (1957), 348 Mich 49, 54.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 N.W.2d 58, 31 Mich. App. 498, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-michigan-consolidated-gas-co-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack