Yotter v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Yotter v. City of Detroit

64 N.W. 743, 107 Mich. 4, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1067

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 22, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 64 N.W. 743 (Yotter 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

Yotter v. City of Detroit, 64 N.W. 743, 107 Mich. 4, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1067 (Mich. 1895).

Pincite

Opinions

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). This case is nearly identical in its facts with Weisse v. City of Detroit, 105 Mich. 482, and is clearly within the rule there established. The cross-walk in the present case was not in as bad condition as was the one in that case, the ends of which would spring up and down when stepped on, while this was solid on the walk or timbers under it. It is sought to distinguish this case from that, because this walk was not a crossing at the intersection of public streets. We think there is no force in this distinction. The city had the right to authorize or permit the owner of the adjoining land to construct a cross-walk similar to those which it might lawfully construct. The existence and construction of this cross-walk were as well known to the residents in that vicinity as were those of any street cross-walk. There is, therefore, no reason in holding that the one was reasonably safe while the other was not. The statute imposing liability is stated in Weisse v. City of Detroit. This case was tried in the court below before the decision in that case was rendered.

[7]*7Judgment reversed, with the costs of both courts, and no new trial granted.

McGrath, O. J., Long and Hooker, JJ., concurred with Grant, J.

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). This case is nearly identical in its facts with Weisse v. City of Detroit, 105 Mich. 482, and is clearly within the rule there established. The cross-walk in the present case was not in as bad condition as was the one in that case, the ends of which would spring up and down when stepped on, while this was solid on the walk or timbers under it. It is sought to distinguish this case from that, because this walk was not a crossing at the intersection of public streets. We think there is no force in this distinction. The city had the right to authorize or permit the owner of the adjoining land to construct a cross-walk similar to those which it might lawfully construct. The existence and construction of this cross-walk were as well known to the residents in that vicinity as were those of any street cross-walk. There is, therefore, no reason in holding that the one was reasonably safe while the other was not. The statute imposing liability is stated in Weisse v. City of Detroit. This case was tried in the court below before the decision in that case was rendered.

[7]*7Judgment reversed, with the costs of both courts, and no new trial granted.

McGrath, O. J., Long and Hooker, JJ., concurred with Grant, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 N.W. 743, 107 Mich. 4, 1895 Mich. LEXIS 1067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yotter-v-city-of-detroit-mich-1895.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack