Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Charles J. Rogers, Inc.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Charles J. Rogers, Inc.

165 N.W.2d 272, 14 Mich. App. 56, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 856

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 24, 1968

DocketDocket No. 4,021

StatusPublished

This text of 165 N.W.2d 272 (Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Charles J. Rogers, Inc.) 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

Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Charles J. Rogers, Inc., 165 N.W.2d 272, 14 Mich. App. 56, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, P. J.

Plaintiff brought this action in the common pleas court for the city of Detroit to recover the cost of repairing an underground telephone cable. Defendant’s employee severed the cable while operating a trenching machine on a construction project under contract with the State highway department.

The trial judge found defendant was negligent in using a trencher in an area in which it had knowledge of a possible conflict with an underground cable. Evidence indicates that defendant was warned of the existence of the cable and that the path of the cable was marked by staking. It does not appear that there was any accurate information available as to the depth of the cable at the point at which it was cut.

In his opinion, the trial judge stated:

“I think it is not unreasonable to expect a trenching company or a construction company to proceed with as much caution, even to hand-dig in an area where a possible six inch conflict might occur. The reliance on a mechanical device without taking into consideration many of the other factors that could contribute to error; the reliance on a mechanical device to miss a cable known to exist in an area by six inches, I do not think is an indication of reasonable behavior on the part of the operators.”

The record indicates the conflicting evidence as to the prudence and advisability of using a mechanical trencher in an area of known conflict with an underground telephone cable. Likewise, conflicting evidence was introduced as to defendant’s knowledge of the conflict and its knowledge of the location of the cable. On our review of this record we cannot say that the trial judge’s resolution of the conflict[58]*58ing evidence was clearly erroneous (GOB 1963, 517.1); Denby v. Sheridan (1966), 3 Mich App 641. Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff.

Fitzgerald and McGregor, JJ., concurred.

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

J. H. Gillis, P. J.

Plaintiff brought this action in the common pleas court for the city of Detroit to recover the cost of repairing an underground telephone cable. Defendant’s employee severed the cable while operating a trenching machine on a construction project under contract with the State highway department.

The trial judge found defendant was negligent in using a trencher in an area in which it had knowledge of a possible conflict with an underground cable. Evidence indicates that defendant was warned of the existence of the cable and that the path of the cable was marked by staking. It does not appear that there was any accurate information available as to the depth of the cable at the point at which it was cut.

In his opinion, the trial judge stated:

“I think it is not unreasonable to expect a trenching company or a construction company to proceed with as much caution, even to hand-dig in an area where a possible six inch conflict might occur. The reliance on a mechanical device without taking into consideration many of the other factors that could contribute to error; the reliance on a mechanical device to miss a cable known to exist in an area by six inches, I do not think is an indication of reasonable behavior on the part of the operators.”

The record indicates the conflicting evidence as to the prudence and advisability of using a mechanical trencher in an area of known conflict with an underground telephone cable. Likewise, conflicting evidence was introduced as to defendant’s knowledge of the conflict and its knowledge of the location of the cable. On our review of this record we cannot say that the trial judge’s resolution of the conflict[58]*58ing evidence was clearly erroneous (GOB 1963, 517.1); Denby v. Sheridan (1966), 3 Mich App 641. Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff.

Fitzgerald and McGregor, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.W.2d 272, 14 Mich. App. 56, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michigan-bell-telephone-co-v-charles-j-rogers-inc-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, P. J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack