Cutcher v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Cutcher v. City of Detroit

102 N.W. 629, 139 Mich. 186, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 902

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1905

DocketDocket No. 104

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 N.W. 629 (Cutcher v. City of Detroit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cutcher v. City of Detroit, 102 N.W. 629, 139 Mich. 186, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 902 (Mich. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The sole question raised by the defense is that the court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendant for the reason that no negligence was shown. The learned counsel for defendant cite no cases in support of their contention. Perhaps no parallel case can be found.

Evidently such a hidden obstruction, considering the character of the soil, is dangerous in wet weather. The rails should have been taken up when the side track was discontinued. If the side track had been in use, any one could see that it was connected with the main track, and [188]*188would naturally take steps to cross it as near as possible at right kngles. We think such an act was negligence, as a matter of law, and that the condition had existed so long that the city, as a matter of law, must be presumed to have had notice of it.

Judgment affirmed.

Moore, C. J., and Carpenter, McAlvay, and Blair, JJ., concurred.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The sole question raised by the defense is that the court erred in not directing a verdict for the defendant for the reason that no negligence was shown. The learned counsel for defendant cite no cases in support of their contention. Perhaps no parallel case can be found.

Evidently such a hidden obstruction, considering the character of the soil, is dangerous in wet weather. The rails should have been taken up when the side track was discontinued. If the side track had been in use, any one could see that it was connected with the main track, and [188]*188would naturally take steps to cross it as near as possible at right kngles. We think such an act was negligence, as a matter of law, and that the condition had existed so long that the city, as a matter of law, must be presumed to have had notice of it.

Judgment affirmed.

Moore, C. J., and Carpenter, McAlvay, and Blair, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 N.W. 629, 139 Mich. 186, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutcher-v-city-of-detroit-mich-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack