129 Mich. 407 | Mich. | 1902
This is an action for negligently causing the death of the intestate. The declaration avers that the defendant maintained a large number of electric 'wires in the city of Owosso, one of which was located near the south bank of the Shiawassee river and north of the Ann Arbor Railroad, near a brick building known as the “Old Electric Power House,” and was fastened to a pole 30 feet high; that, in order to hold said pole in position, said defendant had placed a guy wire connected with said pole at the top, and running southwesterly, fastened at the top of a post 5 or 6 feet high, and that the company had carelessly and negligently placed said guy wire in such a position that it came and was in contact with the electric wire, and thus became a live wire; that said guy wire was located on the west side of a wagon road or track, which was frequently traveled both by foot passengers and by teams; that a person traveling along the track was liable to come in contact with the wire, or liable to put his hand against it, and that it became the duty of the defendant, knowing that said track and grounds were so used as aforesaid, not to locate a guy wire, charged with electricity sufficient to produce death, in and near said track and grounds, so that foot passengers, or any other travelers, would be in danger of coming in contact therewith, or in any manner getting against the same. The declaration further avers that the decedent was passing along the street, highway, and track in a prudent and careful manner, and, without negligence on his part, came in contact with said guy wire, so charged
[[Image here]]
In our judgment, the conclusion of the circuit judge was amply justified by the consideration that these premises were not intended as a resort, and that the defendant owed no duty to the decedent of guarding the premises. The case would fail from the fact that this is not a public way, and the evidence wholly fails to show it. The theory of the plaintiff that the decedent was following this way for the purpose of visiting the asphalt works to the east would show that his presence at the point where the injury was received was wholly unnecessary. We think the case .is ruled by Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich. 1, and it becomes unnecessary to inquire whether the evidence is sufficient to show due care on the part of the decedent. We place our decision upon the ground that no duty was owing to the decedent to keep these premises in a condition suitable for his occupancy. See, also, Bledsoe v. Railway Co., 126 Mich. 312 (85 N. W. 738).
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.