This is an action instituted by Katherine Grooms, plaintiff, against the Union Guardian Trust Company, as defendant, for thе recovery of damages for an injury sustained by plaintiff on March 14, 1940.
*438 The record shows that on the day in question plaintiff fell on a sidewalk adjacent to or near the vicinity of premises known as 8339 Oakland1 avenue, in the city of Detroit, as the result of an accumulation of snow and ice, and was severely injured. The record also shows that the ordinance in effect in the city of Detroit оn the day in question, in so far as it is material in this action, reads as follows:
‘ ‘ Chapter 197, Compiled Ordinances:
“Section 1. No person, firm or corporation shall permit any snow or ice to remain on the sidewalks in the front, rear or sides of any house, premises, building or lot owned, occupied or controlled by him or it, longer thаn 24 hours after it has fallen or formed; and where either has fallen or formed on any such sidewalk, suсh owner, occupant or agent as above provided shall, within 24 hours after the same had fallen or formed, remove said snow or ice, or cause a sufficient quantity of salt, sand or ashеs to be strewn thereon in such manner as to render the same safe for purposes of walking thеreon.
“For the purpose of this ordinance, the phrase ‘sidewalks in the front, rear or side of any house, premises, building or lots’ shall be construed to mean that sidewalks or walks forming a part of the public highway. (Approved February, 1925, effective March 6,1925.)
‘ ‘ Chapter 201, Compiled Ordinances:
(Effective September 3,1926, Ordinance 249-B)
‘ ‘ Sec.. 11. When ice and snow have аccumulated on sidewalks and it is impossible to remove them by usual methods, sawdust, salt, sand, ashes or cinders may be sprinkled in sufficient quantities to make such sidewalks safe for traffic, et cetera.
‘ ‘ Fine: $100 or 30 days in Detroit House of Correction, or both such fine and imprisonment.”
It also appears that from July 12,1927, to November 15, 1939, the defendant acted as trustee under *439 an agreement with Frank S. Werneken in the management of certain property owned by him, including the property known as 8339 Oаkland avenue. This agreement was terminated by the death of said Frank S. Werneken on November 15, 1939. Subsеquently, and on January 15, 1940, an agreement was entered into between defendant and Frank E. Werneken, Helen S. Werneken, Marguerite E. Tilton and Maude W. Taylor, who acquired title to all property hеld under the agreement with said Frank S. Werneken at the time of his death, whereby said defendant was to сontinue to manage said property for the above-named persons.
On April 10, 1935, an application for tenancy was made to defendant trustee by Eobert Boutry and Lula Boutry, his wife, and aсcepted by defendant, as agent of Frank S. Werneken, for the premises known as 8339 Oakland avenue, in the city of Detroit, which application for tenancy provided:
“2. Not to use the premises in contravention of any law or any police or sanitary regulation imposed by any government authority.
“3. To keep the premises in good repair during occupancy and at thе expiration of occupancy to deliver premises in same condition as when takеn, usual wear and tear excepted. ’ ’
The same tenants occupied the premises оn the day of the accident.
The cause came on for trial and at the close of plaintiff’s proofs the defendant moved to direct a verdict of no cause of action uрon the ground that the ordinance upon which plaintiff’s cause of action is based1 imposеs a public duty and confers no right upon an individual. The trial court took the motion under advisement аnd submitted the cause to a jury. The jury rendered a verdict in *440 favor of plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant madе a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that the pleadings and proofs did not creаte any liability on the part of defendant. The trial court granted the motion and held that the ordinаnce in question made only a public duty and' that a personal or private action for a violation of the ordinance could not be maintained by an individual.
It is to be noted that plaintiff’s сlaim for damages is based upon a violation of the ordinance by defendant.
In
Taylor
v.
Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Railroad Co.,
See, also,
Blickley
v.
Luce’s Estate,
The rule announced in the foregoing cases is determinate of the issue involved in the case at bar, and the judgment of the circuit court must stand1 affirmed, with costs.