*1 Reports. questions fairly presented involved herein to their jury determination. affirmed. to
Judgment Costs appellees. J.,C. and Edwards,) Dethmers, Smith, Sharpe, JJ., concurred. 'Voelker, Carr, Black, RICHARDS BIRMINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT. Special Finding 1. Trial — —General Verdict. special facts, finding A on competent evidence, if based con- general (CL 1948, 618.39). trols over an inconsistent verdict § Negligence Special — — — Proximate 2. Cause General. Question Verdict. injuries Plaintiff in action for sustained when bleachers at a game objection collapsed football no who made to form special question you proximate “Do find cause of" * * * plaintiff the fall of the bleacher section sitting applied' was a sideward thrust or lateral force thereto adjoining a sideward movement of the bleacher- question may sections” at time the jury, was submitted question submitting not thereafter the action of the court in it, notwithstanding the existence of the well-established rule there proximate injuries- be more than 1 cause circumstances, received under such submitted not- (CL being ambiguous 618.39). § Collapse op 3. Same —Proximate Cause — Bleachers —General. Special Verdict — Question. general Claim that plaintiff may verdict for be reconciled with special question proximate per- as to “the cause” in action for injuries sonal collapse sustained of bleachers at football [1, [2] 3] Am53 Am Jur, Jur, References Trial Trial § 1063 et § 1083. for Points seq. in Headnotes (cid:127)1957] Dist. School held, untenable, belonging defendant where playing field solely charged erection related sitting in which bleacher section inspection of proximate question was that *2 funding special under and a collapsing by reason of was sideward of section cause sucli collapsing toward adjoining bleacher section from thrust plaintiff sat. where bleacher section n Smith and JJ., dissenting. Edwards, Russel), (H. Appeal J. Oakland; from Holland (Docket 64, 11, 1956. No. Calen- "Submitted October 46,672.) 3, 1957. No. Decided June dar against Dis- Maurice Richards the School Case injuries City the of sus- trict of collapse temporary at football tained in bleachers game. Judgment for non obstante vere- defendant appeals. dicto. Plaintiff Affirmed. (Walter counsel),
Martin Martin, & Martin plaintiff.
Howlett, Beier, Hartman & for defendant. for a and number of is, herein Plaintiff J. Carr, city practicing past a dentist the years been, has Royal which 25, November was Oak. On game Day, Thanksgiving a be- he attended football high Royal representing schools tween teams played Birmingham, game being on the and Oak preparation field of the latter district. athletic game had leased from co- said for the partnership doing the Atlas business as Portable Company to be used at several bleachers Bleacher game conjunction previ- with other bleachers ously At the time in erected. athletic by fence, with ticket offices field was surrounded Plaintiff, at the southeast. west side procured accompanied tickets short- friends him, who Reports. game ly time for before the scheduled and entered They places their the field. took on one Atlas which was leased bleachers located on the proximity east side of the field at or 30-yard north to the field. playing if line, extended, of the starting game A few minutes before plaintiff bleacher on which with other seated, adjacent collapsed, bleachers quence injuries. thereto, as a conse- physical sustained serious against
This action was the do- instituted Birmingham ing copartners, school district and the Company, George
business as the Atlas Bleacher Georgiana Stringham,- B. Post and dam- recover ages. charged copart- The declaration filed guilty were ners which properly in that the bleachers they rented school district were im- negligently constructed. fur- *3 alleged by leasing ther that the which district, the responsibility contract had assumed for the erec- negligent doing tion of the bleachers, was in so process. that care due was not exercised in the It plaintiff’s theory by pleadings was as evidenced his' proofs injuries and by that the sustained him were proximate result of the concurrent the defendants. by
A motion to the declaration dismiss was made ground on defendant the facts district school that under alleged pleading liability there nowas part. presented on its other defendants mo- a claiming tion like character, that there a was mis- joinder parties. Both motions were denied, but prejudice. without filed Defendants answers to plaintiff’s liability, denying par- declaration, and the proceeded jury. support ties his to trial before proofs as set forth in
claims the declaration, plaintiff were offered on behalf of with reference to the construction of the so-called Atlas bleachers and they by manner which were erected the school School Dist. 1957]' plaintiff, including 'Witnesses, testified as district. ground beneath condition of said bleachers, to indicating being possibly to the wet, that it extent of was game, muddy, the time of the and at that support proper planking placed base was not or other prevent tilting. to in order bleachers beneath A mechanical testimony engineer, expert, gave called as an to the with reference construction particular with to Atlas reference bleachers, ability strain, thereof to withstand stress possible improper results of erection. Proofs were also introduced of and extent as nature
plaintiff’s injuries. plaintiff his case defendants had rested After The record indicates directed verdicts. moved for part, least based, that motions were said at previous grounds motions that were the the same as prejudice. Said motions for were denied without by were taken under advisement directed verdicts proceeded whereupon judge, defendants trial * proofs. testified, their Several witnesses bleachers, the north of the Atlas to substance, on other seated, of which were one referred in the record “Leavitt bleachers originated in trouble the latter bleachers,” bleachers, causing collapsed the south toward collapse. The move the Atlas bleachers likewise compared by mo ment one “slow witness picture, row of tion” likened to a others falling also described dominoes succession. was progressing “wave,” as a toward the south. testimony given discussion A detailed *4 purpose. It was no useful serve would each witness dis- school theory and claim the the plain- collapse which on the bleacher trict that the injuries, consequent resulted and his seated, tiff was * Supp 27.1461).— Cum (Stat Ann 1955 CL § See 691.691 § n Keporteb. Reports.
directly from the of the failure Leavitt bleachers. Testimony people was further introduced that the particularly on bleachers, the on the Leavitt bleach- rhythmic swaying moving keeping ers, started or players with in which the calisthenics on one engaged, the football teams were and that this move- collapse ment resulted of said the bleachers. submitting jury trial-judge the case to the the carefully parties set forth in detail the claims the reference the reasons for the occurrence in plaintiff injuries. which suffered his The term “proximate explained. cause” was defined and jury was told that: plaintiff’s claim in “It this case injury ordinary proximate his lack of cause of was agents part
care on erection the Atlas district either school sitting plaintiff which or in the bleacher inspection inspection. or in both such erection you by preponderance if find a fair Thus, should the evidence that the bleacher on which Doctor Rich- ards was erection sitting faulty went down not because of inspection but because of a lateral force applied by falling to it from the side of other ad- joining bleachers in turn were forced down by entirely the failure of an different make of bleach- proximate er, to-wit, Leavitt then the bleacher, plaintiff’s injury cause of the would not be the claimed in its declara- your tion verdict would be one of ‘no cause for ” action.’ request
At the of defendant school district following special question ques- was submitted with presented tions, not material at this time, other defendants: you proximate
“Do that the find cause of the fall of the bleacher section which Dr. Richards, plaintiff, sitting awas sideward thrust or lat- *5 1957] Dist. School by applied a sideward movement thereto force eral of adjoining sections, which sideward bleacher from a lateral force resulted sideward thrust or bleacher sections of one or more Leavitt movement of of side the football north end the east at the field?” plaintiff general for jury verdict returned
The against school the defendant $45,000 in the sum finding were not the other defendants that district, quoted question special an- above was liable. Thereupon defendant in the affirmative. swered notwithstanding judgment for district moved school claiming, to the that the answer 1st, the verdict, general special question with the was inconsistent plaintiff’s favor was 2d, that the verdict verdict; conjecture; speculation and, 3d, that based the school district of the
city Birmingham, as a gwasi-municipal corporation, from was immune liability. plaintiff The trial court concluded that prima proofs, had made out a facie case his urged support that the 2d reason of the mo- tion was not the defend- but well-founded, judgment ant district entitled on the basis inconsistency the 1st and 3d advanced, is, special reasons
between the answer general immunity and verdict and from liability Judgment damages under the facts case. accordingly entered favor of the judgment defendant district. From such appealed. has special questions jury to a
The submission character the trial of of the here involved is cases (Stat provided § § 618.39 Ann CL 27.- 1019), which follows: reads as “In all an cases where issue facts is tried be- any record, court of fore the court shall at the re- writing, quest party, counsel either in- ’ n (cid:127) Reports; they general jury return a also verdict, if struct questions respect- particular upon facts, find joined, ing to' be stated in writ- issue ing, finding shall direct a written thereon: special questions *6 such not Provided, shall exceed single, number, 5 in and shall be each in short sen- readily yes by special tences, answered or The no. finding, upon verdict, shall be clerk, filed any special and entered minutes, and when finding general of facts shall-be inconsistent with a latter, former verdict, the shall control the and the
n court give judgment accordingly.” object sought by The to be attained the section quoted was, stated in Mitchell Perkins, 334 Mich v. 192, 206, follows: purpose special questions
“The
to
is
enable the
jury
court to learn
what view
takes of the ma-
ability
terial
and their
to
issues
make
in-
correct
existing
Boyd,
ferences from
facts. See Cole v.
47
Mich 98;
Abbott,
v.
50
479;
Mich
and Hart-
Durfee
ley
I.
Co.,
v. A. Rodd Lumber
The of the statute is clear and given by proper .as the effect to be an answer to a special question when such answer at variance general with the verdict returned. As indicated quotation pro the above from the Case, Mitchell cedure furnishes method which the trial court may prop determine whether the verdict has been erly reached accordance with the found facts as testimony. scope from the The of the statute was recognized in Finch v. Co., R. Roach Mich W. 299 following excerpt opinion: 703, 711, in the from the appellant “Counsel for has not discussed what given any, special if should be to the consideration, questions jury submitted to the and the answers of jury, questions thereto. These hereinbefore quoted jury by upon were submitted to the the court request They plain of defendant. were and unam- 1957] Dist. School findings questions biguous for fact and called the real issues involved conclusive which were this tions so upon ques- answers, noted, above case. request, by defendant’s if based submitted binding upon competent any are de- evidence, and are conclusive the issues involved fendant in the instant case. Pajalich Co., v. Ford Motor Stivers, Mich 276; Mich Wuerth v. Beecher 418; Galvin, Mich 391.” 322 Mich Matuszak, 644. Nantico v. also, See, plaintiff call attention to well- Counsel than 1 there be more rule established injuries under circum- received proximate cause analogous at bar. How- case those stances ever, proximate special question referred proofs introduced the defendant cause, and obviously support offered district were school failure of the that such cause its claim *7 placed strain on to withstand the bleachers Leavitt them, part any in the on its rather than from the other of Atlas leased erection the bleachers quoted excerpt in the The above defendants case. charge jury the trial indicates that from the to the judge theory claim in mind. had defendant’s recognized may jury It the assumed that the be positions parties well case, to the as as charge may of the court. It noted further that be objection special no made the form of the prior question to the involved to its submission jury. Weeder, Mich differ
In Sedorchuk v.
proxi
expressions
meaning
“the
between
ence
clearly
proximate
“a
cause” was
mate cause” and
submitting
recognized.
the trial court
There
phrase throughout
jury
used the first
case
charge.-
error,
held
his
This was
judgment
on a
defendant’s favor
entered
verdict
The distinc-
trial ordered.
and new
was reversed
Reports.
expression
the forms of
tion between
ognized
was also rec-
Hess,
Elias
of the school district erection and main- of the Leavitt bleachers was tenance the involved in It is insisted case. declaration should charging negligence. such be construed as With this agree. pleading unable to contention we are not in refer to the terms Leavitt bleachers does nor under or the which, to the conditions manner in parties which, said bleachers were erected. The supplying joined parties the Atlas bleachers were as charged negli- defendant, them gence in the construction of the bleachers as well negligence against claiming the school district erection thereof. The averments of the 3d particularly count of the amended declaration are significant, being count said based on the contract copartners, doing between the business as the Atlas *8 Company, Portable Bleacher and the school district, in with accordance which the Atlas bleachers were argu- leased latter. There is no chance ment with reference to the bleachers referred to in appear preceding the 3d count, nor that the does insofar the counts, duties of the defendants were 1957] School Dist. had
concerned, reference to bleachers other than by Stringham furnished defendants Post those and the the of use other defendant. theory plaintiff’s on the tried of The ease light in declaration, the issues amended proofs by thereto. The answers the offered raised testimony including’ expert, by plaintiff, the the mentioned, related to the construction and above plain- denying the Atlas bleachers. erection allegations in the erection of said tiff’s not incumbent on the it was school district bleachers, theory proximate forth its as to the cause of to set the collapse. appear any bleacher It not that does proofs objections to introduced ground made were that district its answer per- the amended declaration was insufficient to receiving proofs mit offered because of omission to set forth the answer in affirmative theory form claim said defendant as ad- vanced on the trial. be noted further, arguments the consideration of the advanced on plaintiff, proofs behalf that the record contains no support finding, or an inference, that the lateral against plain- force exerted the bleacher on collapse tiff was would seated not have caused it to had it been erected in accordance with the details should have insists been observed. correctly trial court held under the record special question the cause the answer to the general inconsistent that returned, with verdict accordance with the mandate of the statute controlling such answer was reference entering judgment. We are in accord with his presented relating conclusions to the issues pleadings proofs. case and brings This us to the whether the de- fendant school liability is immune from district govern- instant case of its status aas because *9 Reports. Michigan repeatedly has been The rule recog agency.
mental that municipal corporation is nized of its agents engaged for the liable not func purely performance in the Detroit City case of early Blackeby, In tion. Am 450), involved Rep 21 Mich of the city injuries liability resulting was condition of defective a crosswalk. from the Such not liability expressly imposed by any statutory then effect. was held that there provision on the of the liability part municipality no because to their of the failure of its employees perform duty. Campbell Court, for the Chief writing Justice (p 113): said York, held in uniformly
“It has also been New officers, that whose offices elsewhere, public as well as are created act are in no sense legislature, municipal and that is not to- agents, neglect their regarded neglect municipality, their misconduct not it chargeable against unless it is authorized or ratified or expressly by implica- tion. This doctrine been to applied has cities as well as all other corporations.” (Citing cases.) from the who dissented conclusion Cooley, Justice ground special legisla- on the of the Court certain granting city of Detroit charter tive the viola- duties, corporate imposed had powers to liability, acquiesced rise give might tion of which in the of the opinion indicated conclusion 118, 119): (pp Justice, saying Chief that a municipal doctrine fully “I concur to an individual is not liable body corporation exercise, failure to or the exercise, damnified by I agree also authority; a legislative have duties State, divisions political their without as- them law upon by general imposed to individuals respond are not liable sent, 1957] School Dist. damages neglect, expressly for their unless made so Upon points statute. these 2 the authorities are generally agreed, and the result is well stated in the
n opinionof the Chief Justice.”
*10
Blackeby
recog
doctrine of the
Case has been
subsequent
among
in
nized
ler v.
decisions,
which are But
City
Rapids,
Grand
Plaintiff in the at bar on the case relies decision Lansing, City in Mich Foss v. ALR pursuant 185). city, There the defendant to resolu- approved by tion vote of the electors, established a municipal garbage collection service, a fee of $1 by per being specified city annum action of the coun- charge cil a as use cans containers. To provide disposing garbage a means corporate city purchased land outside limits, finally establishing property piggery a on the wherein garbage hogs fed when was were sold ready marketing. city returning to the While op- garbage piggery, conveying after a truck plaintiff’s by city employee erated a collided with . Reports. brought ground Tbe was on tbe suit automobile. tbat tbe negligent, truck was and tbat tbe tbe driver appeared city in therefor. tbe liable case was profit a realized which was used tbat disposal. garbage Under these tbe cost of reduce circumstances city tbat concluded tbe this Court might tbe manner same held would liable, Judgment corporation. private fa- defendant’s verdict, on a directed was reversed entered vor, granted. trial newa support Foss reached tbe of tbe conclusion opinion Rowland v. Kalama- tbe rendered cited
Case Superintendents Poor, 49 Mich which zoo damages on a claim suffered based tbe suit was wrongfully per- bad defendants because contagious of a disease tbe communication mitted plaintiff’s alleged bogs. wrong committed, Tbe operation farm tbe tbe claimed, as it profit was realized. from some defendants Tbe *11 recognized. liability Tbe was of defendants Lansing, City opinion v. also cited Ostrander Foss of injured by in which tbe was Mich 693, 111 tbe Liability caving claimed be- of a was in sewer. city provision charter tbe au- of tbe of charge of a cause per- thorizing making of an annual to tbe private premises connected were whose sons system. interesting public It to tbe sewer drains language in the Ostrander Case was tbat note tbe to based Corey, bolding City in Detroit v. on tbe of 78), (80 in which was Am Dec involved Mich 165 provision in nature of similar of tbe charter Detroit city Lansing, provision to tbe tbe charter to Corey tbe Case it- which reference was made. 184) (p was said : power tbat tbe under
“It is also to be observed they lawful which' acted, and which made tbat which power anot unlawful, would otherwise been was have 1957] School Dist. governmental given city purposes, the for to or a public municipal duty imposed city, on the as to keep repair, special in or like, its streets the for but a legislative grant city private purposes. to the city, supplying The sewers like its for works city private property with water, are the of the city they belong city. corporation to — corporators, its the citizens, are alone in interested public people them—the outside at State large have no they interest them, as have in the city, public streets of highways.” are appears analysis thus that the final the lan- guage predicated in the Ostrander Case was on the theory city Lansing was in effect strictly exercising not a function but proprietary one in character. Hodgins Bay City, situation existed
A similar Rep 546), Am St Mich 687 cited 156 in It likewise support of the conclusion reached Foss Case. recognized power within the there was was legislature grant municipalities right to to light public generally. furnish and water by coming intestate electrocuted Plaintiff’s operated by contact with a wire erected and defend part system ant its the transmission city electric current. It was held that the could not responsible be held insofar as used in the trans wires to public lighting mission of electric current system was but that concerned, it would be liable transmitting in the maintenance of wires purchasers. again pro current for sale Here prietary recognized, function the Court refer ring supra, Case, Ostrander such manner as to indicate that decision there on the was based *12 ques fact that the construction of sewer in city governmental exercising tion the “its local was ¡functions.” Reports., 348
504 by note comment made this interest of It is Ontonagon County Road Com- v. in Johnson Court the Foss 465, reference to missioners, 253 Mich prior cited therein. In the decisions Case Johnson Case sought damages
plaintiff
for
recover
being
injuries
a
of
struck
a
result
sustained
by-
employee
operated
of
snowplow
an
county.
Ontonagon
line M-26
board
trunk
being
contract
defendant under
done
work
with
tract
plus
highway
con-
commissioner. Said
State
payments
provided
a
determined on
cost-
that be-
insisted
in the case
basis,
might
profit
or
realized,
incidental
cause some
operation,
realized, from the
removal
snow
have been
apparent
held liable under the
should be
defendant
theory
supra.
Lansing,
City
In re-
v.
of Foss
of
472):
(pp
jecting
claim,
471,
this
was said
may also be noted
phase
case it
of
this
“On
corporations
municipal
and other
purely governmental
performing a
agencies when
immunity
liability for
from
their
not lose
do
function
its
they
merely
de-
negligent performance
because
provided the income is
therefrom,
an' income
rive
functioning
purpose
only
main
so
incidental
undertaking.
covering
the cost
at
and aimed
(24
City Boston,
781,
Mass 505
NE
Curran
465);
City
Rep
Bolster v.
Am
LRA
St
243,
(114
LRA1917B,
722,
NE
225 Mass 387
Lawrence,
1285);
City
Cincinnati,
Bell v.
80 Ohio St
910).
other
128,
hand,
23 LRA
On the
NE
NS
respond
municipality may
damages
held
agent
employee
negligent act of
incident
its
activity
voluntary
profit
own
to
and commercial in character.
undertaken for its
City
Bolster
supra.
Lawrence,
Road
Gunther v. Board of
Cheboygan County,
Commissioners
the the public performing a city concerned, was exercising duty, words, in other operation piggery it but that function, proprietary operating in character effect, inwas, might private corporation as a manner in the same *14 as well on, therein relied The decisions have acted. opinion, support in the such statements certain as theory, in the Johnson references thereto and the functions involved in accord. That the Case are Ilodgins were of such in Cases the Ostrander scarcely open question. It is, think, character we opinion prevailing in noted also City Detroit, 161, 291 Mich rested Matthews v. of suggested. the defendant was on the There basis op employee in of held its liable in connection with eration of miniature train used a charged park. zoological visitors a A small fare was equally affirming, by riding on an the train. plaintiff, judgment for it was said Court, divided a 168): (pp 167, city of De- “It our that while the conclusion park pure- maintaining zoological troit in its
ly capacity, governmental opera- in nevertheless its profit tion the miniature with a resultant railroad, of proprietary exercising function; it therefrom, was negligence arising op- and was liable for from such eration.” organized under the of statutes districts
School governmental specific for the are created this State powers carrying purpose out the constitutional legislature with ref- vested State and duties maintenance of common and the to education erence higher learning. In Dan- and institutions schools (LRA1916F, Education, 191Mich 339 Board iels v. boy years age, approximately 468), plaintiff, falling injured in a school build- the result 1957] School Dist.
ing
stairway
improperly
from a
claimed to have been
safeguarded
for use
children. A demurrer to the
appeal
declaration in the case was sustained and on
this Court affirmed
action of
trial
court, com-
menting
opinon
in its
on the status of the defendant
particular
school district in
and other districts of
general.
part
State
(pp
was there
said,
347)
:
nothing
enlarging
powers
find
act
“We
governmental
beyond
pure
of the board
that of a
agency
authority
created and restricted
its
ex-
clusively
public purpose
education,
uni-
versally recognized
governmental
as a distinctive
municipal corporation proper,
If
function.
awere
its functions would be both
in ad-
ministering delegated powers of the
and,
State
to a
larger
municipal,
govern, manage,
extent,
or to
regulate local
city,
affairs within the
limits
village,
incorporated,
or district
frequently
the latter
including
profit
business
operating
activities for
*15
public utilities in the
well-being
interest and for the
community.
of the
only
authority given
Not
is no
municipal
to the school
board
exercise
functions,
powers
exclusively
but its limited
are
restricted to
purposes
tain
Although
of education.
invested with cer-
corporate
efficiently
to more
characteristics
purpose
they
serve
are created, school
municipalities,
public corpora-
districts are not
nor
very
tions
the full
but
of
sense,
because
their
re-
powers
distinguished
recognized
stricted
are
quasi corporations.
organized
as
under a
That a district is
property
act,
local
that the school
of the dis-
trict is held in
name,
its
and that it
sue or be
enlarge
quasi corporation.
sued does not
it from a
Attorney
Lowrey,
General, ex rel. Kies, v.
131 Mich
639; Whitehead v. Board
Education
Detroit,
of
of
In the case at bar the defendant school district physical department maintains a education aas part of and in facilities, its connection therewith promotes including fosters and athletics, football, baseball, basketball, track and other activities. This regulations is done in accordance with of the State department part of education, and aas of the edu- program cational of the defendant school district. disputed It is not proper such have a activities place physical in education and mental development of students. It is conceded that de- charged fendant has admission to football and base- games, apparently ball being other athletic contests open public generally charge. without
An exhibit introduced defendant district on objection, the trial of the case, without which ex- prepared by public hibit was certified accountants, program discloses that the athletic activities year ending defendant school district June operating 30, 1949, resulted in a net loss. The foot- played game ball on November 25, 1948, must be part considered as a of the athletic activities of the independent school rather than as an contest. It appears physical thus that such activities department year ques- education did not, profit. tion, result in a net On the record in the may case it not be claimed that such are activities purpose making money carried for the for the benefit of defendant school district. the en- Rather, department operated part tire the school objectives facilities and furtherance of the to be attained educational lines. not be said *17 Michigan Reports. (cid:127)510 district, in that defendant athletic allowing compe- other schools, tition with is in a thereby engaging in the proprietary function nature. On it contrary, a performing function vested in it by law. the somewhat those in analogous facts
Under of involving question bar, precise case at it held here, from claimed was liability immunity City, City District Bay Watson School in v. of of Court, by an divided that 1, evenly 324 Mich not en Judgment was entitled recover. plaintiff notwithstanding the trial the verdict court by tered advanced of was affirmed. reasons jury Foss here. v. are opinion applicable the prevailing Lansing, supra, is for the herein- reasons City of It may not be noted applicable. before suggested Michigan Ath that Scott v. University of passing 125 Am Ass’n, letic (17 234, 152 Mich LRA NS not action 15 Ann was an 423, 515), Cas Rep St of of of against regents University the board an rather, association was, against but of alumni business undergraduates, composed the case, reversing judgment men. In the decision of on a verdict directed for defendant entered that rather association, it was court, emphasized a than the board of was regents, proper party for was the erection responsible action because in a and stood collapsed position the bleacher that resort. proprietor public that analogous Robinson Washtenaw noted, also, Judge, held Circuit 228 Mich it was not mal liable regents alleged board a surgeon on the practice part operating plain held hospital. It was that said University tiff an to the medical adjunct department hospital main instrumentality and was State educational at We think the expense. tained de public foregoing principles clearly recognized cisions indicate 1957] School Dist. controlling on the State as con- under sideration. called
Counsel have attention to the supreme Sawaya decision of the court Arizona in High County, v. Tucson School District No. Pima 105). 78 Ariz 389 P2d There school district rented its stadium for other use *18 conducting game. in schools football It was the plaintiff game attending claim of that while he fell because of the defective condition of the stadium. leasing It was held that in and receiv- stadium ing compensation therefor the school district inwas proprietary of a exercise and that in function, consequence injuries it was liable for sustained as negligence a result of of maintenance said may stadium. It be noted that the defendant district promoting activity was not an educational of its receiving own but was, rental rather, for the use property. holding, of being its The on the based finding actually pro- that the function exercised was prietary point in nature, is not in at the case bar. interesting opinion It is note that the court recognized general 391): saying (p rule, great weight of.authority believe the .“We corporation quasi-public that the district school is a agency pur- for the sole acts as pose furnishing of educational facilities and admin- public system istering educational of the State not and hence officers, liable for its agents, employees. have We held in so case of No. 48 District Coun- Maricopa School (243 762). Ariz 609, v. 30 1 P 45 ALR Rivera, ty case School Independent District No. 27 Bang County, 449), 454 Minn NW St. Louis many jurisdictions adhering cites from cases to view.” Gulfport City Plaintiff also Harllee cites
(CCA), 120 F2d it under was.held Reports. Mississippi pertinent provisions of the code duty city juris- on defendant to maintain rested parks public playgrounds diction over its exercise reasonable care to make them safe for injured public Plaintiff resort. because de- equipment belonging city. Obviously,, fective regarded the decision must be either as based on provisions of the State statute, construed as im- city, posing duties on the or as in direct conflict with decisions of this Court, above cited. either event, regarded authority holding it not be defendant school district liable in the case at bar.
Appellant further claims that the trial court was excluding testimony error certain offered plaintiff on the trial. haveWe examined the record prejudicial and have that no concluded error to' respects was committed in the to which at- testimony tention is directed. Had the offered been appear not received, does that the result reached, granting judgment so far as the of the motion for notwithstanding the verdict is could have concerned, any way been in affected.
Judgment affirmed. C. J., and Kelly, J., concurred with Dethmers, J. Carr, (concurring). special J. The verdict con Black, opinion in Mr. Justice Carr’s was returned sidered practice by in accordance with dictated old an stat appeared of which the substance first ute, (PA 15) now 1885, No and is recorded 1948, CL (Stat 27.1019).* § Assuming § Ann 618.39 that questions question jury by answered are de answer controlling terminative issue of fact, Tyler (see opinion rehearing, on or answers v. Rule No [*] The speeial (1945) verdict not involved procedure in this authorized case. by section 7 of Court 1957] Richards v. School Dist. 567) governing
Wright, become the 561, 188 Mich they jury’s general if conflict with the and, verdict by latter before the former com- falls verdict, mand is such of the statute. This a case. alleged in his choke-bored declaration—
Plaintiff speak at the aimed so to Atlas bleachers alone—that negligent the defendant school district was ting footing; in set- up the Atlas bleachers without stable and solid proximate
that such was the admittedly injuries, cause of his serious and that against he was entitled recover the school district pleaded theory. on No other triable such issue was parties plaintiff squared made and the and defendant jury off before the it. settle special question, The answer to which formed the pivotal special verdict in case, was submitted by the defendant school district. Plaintiff did not object to form its or fitness below. Neither did he request an amendment of his declaration to meet or purposed object fend the thrust thereof. He does high temperature, here, but we cannot under minutely such circumstances criticize the disclosed purpose question and the effect of its answer Dupont Starring, 495). (Cooley, J., 42 Mich 492, special pursued the school The district’s proximate cause col- fact; defense lapse plaintiff was not of the Atlas bleachers as claimed swaying consisted cadenced —that adjacent Leavitt exuberant seated fans, bleachers, weight-laden ultimate of which hurled the result laterally Leavitt into Atlas bleachers. bleachers question, upheld jury, its answer to such special of fact. The the mentioned defense thus verdict by plaintiff’s negatives the made ease declara njade tion and the testimonial case thereunder. upon turning Babcock, Thorsen Mich *20 judgment in statute, same stances must that such circum dictates general special and not the follow 514 348 Beports. Michigan judge consequently right in trial The verdict. entering judgment for district.* school jury’s
Having that arrived at conclusion judgment special for indicated, verdict as calls unnecessary im- to decide becomes munity liability pleaded from the defendant as school district. affirm,
I vote costs defendant. Sharpe, J., J. Black, concurred with History would tell us- J. (dissenting). Edwards, wrong,” king no can do died “The doctrine, in the court which tried Bunnymede 1215. Yet at ghost forth legal of that doctrine strode this case damages jury to an award a down and struck injured seriously county at a dentist Oakland Thanksgiving collapse game Day football then inconsistent his special the mandatory. decided. a than that jury [*] case This ease was statutory Hormel Estate v. may question is inconsistent fails and In Hormel we advanced not return special practice submitted finding. The rule of that by him, and general verdict a verdict Harris, unanimously invoked and during with and Mich that, our ruled his favor must applied m each ease if last rejects plaintifí’s (p 205 of has case is October some jury’s been submitted and controlling different term. answer report) yield to the theory, theory being Since- here, to a in our question practice. tion ment be disclose confusion and retrial argument discretion To contradictory require statute, whether quarters regular eases Court supporting employment of the pursuant see Sunderland’s jury to practice to that which there (Hormel Rules). to elimination instances is an They suggest again that bring rather present section 7 any arrant where occasion than Riehards) pointedly renew bruited notes, general of the statute incongruity prompt and pages 67-70 statutory of Court Rule No Court Rule special verdicts that be done as a at variant intelligent consideration with resultant best, practice of 1931 revision rules of and discard justice our has matter of confine- (1945). reports special led to might givqn ques- (For *21 1957] 515 v. School Dist. negligently-erected opinion Basing bleachers. his immunity largely on an derived from that once held sovereign, by the absolute Justice Carr would like- hold that school wise this district cannot be sued wrong. though for this he And holds this even tort was committed the conduct of revenue- activity injured producing person spectator. and the anwas paying, admission invited, innocent opinion, adopted, degree, His if would, to some extend of a the influence doctrine which has been legislative whittled down in our courts and halls in recent turning decades. cannot concur with We progress already clock back from such as has been allowing damages governmental made toward wrongs. The real which this case raises is: When discharge governmental duty agents of a governmental of some unit commit an act which injures damages or an act individual, which would recovery person by private occasion if committed corporation, damage entirely upon or shall the fall unlucky the citizens or shall it victim, rather borne all governmental through unit concerned judgment tax-paid premiums? insurance long gave
The land has this doctrine birth adopted the latter of abandoned it and these since English generations courts, alternatives. For actions founded upon negligence been allowed have Lyme against municipalities and school districts. Regis (6 (1834), Henley Eng Rep 2 &F 331 v. Clark Rep Eng 601); Shrimpton 1180, 1 Cas Hertfordshire (1911), Rep unty 104 Co Council Times Law (2 Ching Surrey County 238); Council, NCCA 229);Morris (2 [1910] 1 KB 736 NCCA v. Carnarvon County Council, [1910] 1 KB 840 NCCA (2 234); Kingston- Corporation Martin Smith v. 215). Upon-Hull, [1911] KB2 775 NCCA Reports. have United States States Certain English precedent by later followed likewise from the rule deviation marked municipalities applies immunity and schools. itas tort now allows actions statute, California, (Deering’s generally. Code Government California seq., seq.-, 1951), §§ et et and 16040 California 1952), (Deering’s §§ 1007 and 1008. Code Education *22 liability also been estab- Rather more limited has Washington and statute New York, lished apparently the disastrous results Alabama, which without governmental immunity some defenders of predicted. Liability Lloyd, Municipal Tort have Quarterly 278; Roseniield, New 23 NYU Law York, Immunity Liability for Tort in Governmental from Legal 5 Notes on Local Govern- Accidents, School (1939-1940). 358 ment, judicial has undertaken Tennessee, State,
One immunity to the limited doctrine of the amelioration coverage. County Marion v. insurance extent of Rogers 477); (61 v. Tenn 358 SW2d Cantrell, 166 414). 125 Butler, Tenn SW2d 170 majority of that the doubt, however, no There is of the United States in the States the courts adhere at proposition present that the to the basic political from are immune subdivisions and its State arising damage from tort claims actions pro- legislation proof of ameliorative of absence prietary Municipal Corpora- Jur, Am function. 38 Municipal § Law of 572, McQuillin, and tions, ed), (3d § Corporations cases 53.05 and cited therein. persuasive voices have been raised and brave
Some urge outright judicial abandon bench to from the judge-made rule. Justice Wolfe of the ancient ment (Bingham put dissenters thus the case these Ogden City, 118 582,593, Board Education Utah of [223 432]: 598-600 P2d 1957] Birmingham; Dist. School “I dissent. opinion “The court’s states: “ judges have and editors writers, law ‘While foregoing disapproved doctrine of and criticized governmental unjust, illogical immunity as supports the precedent weight decided eases disregard prin- prefer general not to and we rule statutory authority. ciple without established so well majority adopt rule of the therefore, We, hold that school liable cannot be held boards ordinary negligent acts.’ purpose principle for regard prefer said “I for the dim dis- not wait land when the overruling it. I would legislature- in never-never tant future years During my on the district bench act. sovereign principle years bench, and 16 this nonliability immunity in- of charitable cousin, and its hospitals, specifically before has come stitutions, other as well We, times. in various court at various jurisdictions have- resort, of last courts problem principle of nonlia- had to face this municipal quasi- ability of and of the State municipal corporations which are to have taken said sovereignty on the cloak of of their exercise- because in- which, claimed, functions it is *23 supe- respondeat them from the sulates rior. mits an injuries doctrine of recognized per- We have that the State, damages against action for for its citizens by inflicted their the of their torts and torts pursuance of in the course or committed servants should not shield itself be- business, of the master’s ‘the- and indefensible doctrine that hind the immoral wrong;’ king (sovereign) can do no that neither sovereign refuge the take the doctrine should agencies, to- courts, its own the must not be allowed * * * judgment against their creator. render hospitals rule of found the “Having of in the case today, fitting of we immunity conditions for the not sovereign, by rule of hold the the token should same today.. applicable immunity It of conditions not conditions. not fit those and does is outmoded Reports. June I may whereby developed “Society risks has systems ' consequence, I think pooled and distributed. be the fear [Nib expressed Case the Niblock I City], P2d 573, 583 Lake Utah lock v. Salt 800, 804) be from vexa free that ‘the should State might grounds which fictitious on suits based tious immunity spring removed’ into were abundance might in risk be that the into account take did not unworthy will fictitious or Doubtless, there sured. of them will be successful. doubtless some suits and That is democracy pay penalties we one of by justice justice, must be administered because and outweighing greatly con beings. this But human period of time children that in a the fact sideration by injured of servants adults and the municipalities employees or of the or State, being injustice of un will suffer the boards, school shortsighted compensated by society which too a immunity sovereign was out that the rule see longer necessary. and no moded legislature could and should “I admit that modify But we must be the doctrine. or abolish long before the time indeed he a realistic. enlightened society become suffi- individuals our injustice ciently and aroused interested immunity bring pressure that social rule legislature denominat- which Mr. Justice Plolmes necessity But meanwhile ed the ‘felt of the times.’ capacity charged or with children, not fact law experience danger, and not to know adults chargeable contributory negligence, may perish throughout carry disfigurement or their lives impairment hope compensation without because they unlucky enough damages were to have had such inflicted servant of a servant of State one of its arms. “Certainly duty have a here. There are cases we remedy powerless to act where we are lies because solely legislature. But in those with the cases where still control have rule or doctrine be- we judge developed, may cause it was act. made we *24 n 519 Birmingham; 1957] Dist. School Bichards problem ‘passing’ and here Nonaction way easy think But not out. I do legislature is to hand do lift our when us not to for conscionable up bring and date furnish law would so remedies tively to opine long if that we affirma- I overdue. hasten those would there would be who acted, legislature to such limitations and advocate give they thought would needed to conditions exempt opportunity now bodies the State investigation prevent timely and to excessive make against judgments public bodies.” those See, Erickson in Rhoades also, dissent v. School County, 9, District Roosevelt 352, No. 115 Mont 361 (142 1) 890, 160 ALR P2d Frank dissent in City Burlington, Clain v. 202F2d 532. plea outright noted, As has for been this abandon- governmental immunity by judicial ment decision been little has date heeded. many ways country,
But other too, this curtailing mitigating trend indicated toward harsh effects doctrine. government, through congress, The Federal has years largely recent in the tort act claims abolished against the defense far as tort claims the United government § USCA, 2674; States are concerned. 28 1346(b). Towing § 28 Indian Co. USCA, See (76 48); States, United L Ct ed 122, 100 US S Rayonier Incorporated States, 352 v. United US 315 354). S Ct 1 L ed2d 374, Michigan legislature spirit has
In the same immunity defense of abolished the all political well as of the State as subdivisions per- actions in relation to itself State §§ taining 691.151, 691.- vehicles. CL to motor (Stat §§ 9.1708[2]; CL 9.1708[1], Ann Eev Supp. § (Stat 27.3548 § 1955 Cum Ann 1948, 691.141 [41]). *25 Michigan Reports. 348
520 longer period of time For still the courts Michigan degree have moved to some lesser by refusing apply same direction to the doctrine of immunity classification of cases where the activity revenue-producing concerned of a char “proprietary” Hodgins and, hence, acter in nature. Bay City, (132 Rep 546); Mich Am 687 St City Lansing, 185); Foss v. ALR 237Mich 633 City Detroit, Matthews v. 291Mich 161. “proprietary” This distinction between function “governmental” widely function itself has been interpret lacking logic. criticized as difficultto Liability Municipalities, Antieau, Tort of American Ky Law Journal 131,Tooke, Extension of Munici- pal Liability in Torts, Law Rev Va 97. In our logic, view, the basic lack of however, not in lies “proprietary” exception, underlying but in the rule upon King wrong based the notion that the can do no history contrary. when so much of testifies remedy problem govern- The clear-cut immunity undoubtedly legisla- mental lies State adopted tion the nature and character of that years by government recent within the Federal through congress. Court action to achieve the same goal by repudiation long-established of this common- hampered by precedents law doctrine is unnumbered and the doctrine of stare decisis. It cannot come as legislative change ample public can after discussion warning upon and with full to those bodies whom lia- bility would be thrust take such measures of an might they insurance nature as deem desirable. major question Further, case, instant this adequately argued. has not been briefed or Nor, indeed, do we believe a decision on the basic doctrine except essential to our current decision in the sense inevitably that this case will either extend curtail governmental immunity degree. to some 1957] School Dist. degree do not hesitate continue in we
To judicial movement toward the established case negligence. protected curtailing For the this rule existing distinction present, reiterate we govern- solely are which functions between proprietary in are their also and those mental nature. that has come into its dis- of the confusion
Much mutually assumption that these are lies cussion exclusive believe, is not so. All we This, terms. *26 any performed by governmental unit with- activities powers legislatively-assigned constitutionally or in governmental obviously governmental. Of those are functions some recognized in distinction are this as customarily by private being performed indus- more government historically try, with associated less they produce revenue or when these, alone, profit, “proprietary.” is no There been termed have activity “proprietary” necessity, in to find an order exemption purpose from of for. the nongovernmental. immunity, that it is also to find agree that the football we with Justice Carr Thus litigation produced game current was a activity proper governmental district for the school city sponsor. Nor to do we of the of say Birm- when the district of school hesitate charged ingham solicited and thereto, admission temporary up attendance, set bleach- advertised larger of admission- to accommodate numbers ers spectators, paying a sum total of and collected thereby engaging in that it was admissions, $5,757.55 “proprietary” function under the case which, in a immunity. any claim law of this forestalled State, gross interesting from the ad note that It is report of ex above, recited the official mission sum penses payment Federal tax. of $956.21 includes United This follows the decision States su University System Regents preme in court Allen v. Reports. Georgia, 1448),, Ct 82 L ed US S supreme college court held that wherein State charged athletic contests for which admission was subject a Federal tax. Mr. were admission Justice' opinion, speaking University Roberts’ of' Georgia’s (p 452): contests, athletic said “The1 important fact that the in order State, to raise' public purposes, has funds for in a embarked busi having enterprises- the incidents of ness usually prosecuted similar private gain.” apt proprietary can find no more definition of a We function than the above. which tical And fact situation
gave rise to Justice Roberts’ comment is iden- bearing legal principles all matters the one we with which deal here. recognize opinion pre that,
We
the event this
specific
Michigan,
vails,
are for
time,
we
the first
ally applying
“proprietary”
upon
limitation
governmental immunity for school districts. Yet
“proprietary”
recognized
limitation has been
frequently Michigan
applicable
proper
under
municipalities.
facts to school districts as well
toas
City
Daniels v. Board
Education
Grand
Rapids,
(LRA 1916F, 468);
191Mich 339
Daszkiewicz
*27
v. Detroit Board
Education,
the defendant “proprietary” question, function within the ain meaning The answer lies of this doctrine? strongly an affirmative favor much more which
facts Watson Case those in the than even answer evenly the Court: divided game
(1) and national holi- on a school The day Thanksgiving, 1948; — by paid (2) public general was invited ad- The ; vertisements spectators, paid
(3) plaintiff, all well The as admission; greatly
(4) admissions exceeded the The total leaving profit game, after taxes and of the (cid:127)costs n expensesof over $3,000; provided (5) The occurred the stands accident spectators admission-paying for the while players field; were on the (the
(6) particular injury source of the tem- specifically porary stands) game was erected obviously question, purpose pro- in' ducing injury more revenue. The source (as permanent Case) not the Watson feature premises; regular school (7) stands, to one set of the school district As deliberately sought to reduce the cost increase profit attempting to contract claimed its suppliers immunity through stands, agreement responsibility all an “to assume might during the and rental of be incurred use these seats.” clearly indicate that view, our these facts engaged “proprie- in a district was school *28 Michigan Reports. game
tary function” in the conduct of this football present under and settled case and, hence, govern- law is not to claim the defense of entitled immunity. mental my relief,
As another basis denial of Brothers special point to a Carr and Black to the answer say jury’s and thereon was answer general inconsistent its verdict. § [Stat (CL § 27.- Ann 618.39 The statute questions special
1019]), be sub- which under follows: mitted, is as tried before an facts is where issue of “In all cases request any at the record, the court shall court party, writing, instruct of the counsel either
in the find which the issue is general jury they to- verdict, also if return a respecting- upon particular questions facts, joined, writing, be stated finding Provided, a written shall direct thereon: special questions not 5 in such shall exceed number,, readily single, and shall be each in answered sentences, short by yes special or no. The verdict, finding, upon shall be filed with the clerk, and entered any special finding the minutes, and when of facts- general shall be inconsistent with a the- verdict, give- former shall control the court latter, judgment accordingly.” language provides such- It will be noted its special questions not exceed 5 number, shall readily single, sentences, each in short an- shall be any by “yes” and, or “no”; further, “when swered special finding of facts shall be inconsistent with a general control the latter.” verdict, former shall special question was as follows:
Our proximate you find that cause of the fall “Do Richards, bleacher section which Dr. sitting plaintiff, force the thrust or lateral was a sideward applied thereto sideward movement adjoining sideward. bleacher sections, *29 Birmingham School Dist. Richards 1957] force resulted from the sideward lateral or thrust movement Leavitt of one or more bleacher sections east north end the side football at the field?” complied wording this whether doubted be purpose statute, the letter of the but
with the question having objection below, to made the been no here. this issue will not decide we given by jury the to affirmative answer theWas an inconsistent with award the stated requires plaintiff? damages hold that was To to logic. reciting as lawsuit, filed his Plaintiff curious spectator paying he an invited, when facts that as by they sitting defendant, erected in stands was negli- collapsed assertion, in his to him, due, under by gent defendant school district. thereof erection guilty negligence having been found such Now, by jury, general the dis- verdict of the school the liability ground on that the to the trict seeks avoid jury during the course trial that found collapse negligence which occasioned actual spectator per- sitting on was which this stands stands also erected to some other tained immediately abutting defendant and the stands same spectator presum- stands, on. These other ably, negligence fall erected with such were as first, thrust,” “lateral occasioned the and, hence, perhaps negligently-erected collapse less plaintiff upon which the seated. stands injustice gravest it would view, our plaintiff deny recovery him fashion not that it was when defendant’s defense becomes, negligent, proxi- not did not its not mately plaintiff’s injury, cause but that defendant’s slightly negligence of a different character than urged upon (and the court that which had only the could about which distinction injury. knowledge) had occasioned have his Reports. before us discloses plaintiff sought record in 1949 supplier information stands exhibit injury. which resulted his Plaintiff’s #27 from Schools, is a letter Public B. Ireland and Dwight signed by Superintendent . attorney, part: addressed to plaintiff’s reciting I again “Prom have discussed your description director, matter the athletic and he assures this me that Dr. Richards was sitting bleachers from the were rented Atlas Portable Bleacher Com- 2170 East Jefferson pany, avenue, Detroit. The *30 sections next to bleachers the reserved seats were from the Atlas Portable Bleacher Company, and there no question but that Dr. was Richards on these from sitting seat as described bleachers the location of his your letter.” the trial some later developed during years temporary that other sections bleachers of the field the Atlas same side bleachers had the school district from the by been rented Walled Lake These are referred to as the Leavitt schools. There from which the testimony bleachers. was jury found that these which bleachers apparently and to first the side occa- collapsed by pressure of the adjacent sioned the Atlas bleacher collapse Dr. which Richards upon sitting.
Plaintiff sued the district school and Atlas Company, only supplier Bleacher temporary whose name been him by stands had furnished school district.
But plaintiff pleaded relation to de- fendant of all school district’s erection the temporary stands: duties,
“That the aforesaid notwithstanding said defendants on or jointly severally, and did about in the Day, 25, 1948, November Thanksgiving city Birmingham, invite the to attend public generally Dist. School 527- 1957] temporary game provided bleachers for and football patrons paid seating to those accommodations thereby price and which entitled the the admission by occupy provided buyer to a seat said ticket that said bleachers were inade- defendants; said negligently quately, improperly, carelessly con- by and maintained defendants, that, structed said planks placed to-wit: no boards or were under the supporting uprights prevent to the stands from sink- ing ground thereby imperiling stability bleachers; that no footboards were used con- necting supporting uprights to the stand struc- prevent shifting; to ture from bleachers that the parts assembled of the bleachers were not secured together proper bucks, braces and bolts to insure a solid adapted structure; that the bleachers not were purpose they proper were used; that inspection was not made for the use of the bleachers general public at the time the occupy was invited to properly them; and there was failure maintain safety patrons said occupying bleachers insure the of invited them; that the failure of the defendants legal to maintained a they fulfill their aforesaid duties, erected and inherently danger- structure which was jeopardized ous and life limb of a crowd of people mission upon payment invited to use them of an ad- fee.” *31 negligence gen-
Defendant school district denied erally plead any answer, in its but did not affirma- prior pertaining collapse tive defense the of the Leavitt stands. testimony trial which at from the
Plaintiff offered might properly jury temporary the Atlas have found both temporary and the Leavitt
bleachers school dis- had been erected bleachers proximate negligence which cause trict with injury. of Dr. Richard’s Beports. jury
Subsequent to the verdict judgment judge granted motion for defendant’s trial notwithstanding jury. the verdict of point from view favor recite evidence
We plaintiff, when deal with motions we able- directed dicto. judgment non vere verdicts or obstante Cunningham, Canning 322 Mich 18 Miller 2; Pillow, Mich 262. Kidle, who had had ex- witness, Walter Plaintiff’s perience bleachers, with the erection of testified as follows: up I near I could to the there, “As walked as up I end, of the to the north could bleachers,
back look under the themselves. I noticed there bleachers any planks. my eyes. I I wasn’t saw own A-jack They things that know an is. are the what stringers up upon hold seat boards and placed. I walked, foot the are As I noticed that boards legs sinking of the into the A-frames were ground. game yet. had not then I I commenced stayed on the east of the field and walked to side north end of the stand. walked around the We progressed the end of then stand, stand, along front of the stand to find a seat. We found place to sit on the bleachers. The bleacher we sat collapsed. I do not whether it know was the same that Dr. bleacher Bichards sat on.” Westerby, George Mr. a witness for the defend- ant called for district, school cross-examination plaintiff, testified when he had that, erected Stringham, stands the instructions of under Mrs. one Company, the owners the Atlas Bleacher in a previous year, he had shimmed the A-frames where ground always and “I was low used boards where ground per- testimony the taining was soft.” His continued inspection of the bleachers after acci- planks any : “I dent no under saw A-frames. any lengths I did not see of those 4-foot so-called *32 1957] Dist. School any at under of tbe A-frames. Not that time, boards particular any nor other end.” end, on at indicated that there was consider- witnesses Other level of area in the the which the variance in able temporary were and erected, bleachers the muddy ground that no and and shims or soft planks the were underneath A-frames either used bleachers. Atlas Leavitt the testimony the a fair entire inference could From legs jury that the drawn the A- have been frames set planks muddy ground without uneven them, into the mud underneath sank under spectators standing load of seated on the the the and thus unbalanced distribution of bleachers, collapse weight the on A-frames so as to occasion of the bleachers. plaintiff produced evidence at the trial from
Thus jury have could found defendant school which district negligent in the erection of both the Atlas jury general its bleachers, and Leavitt as did verdict. special read
The writer cannot the answer general verdict. as inconsistent By general jury verdict the found school dis- proximate negligence guilty trict plaintiff’s injuries. By the answer cause special question, jury indicated that the Leavitt bleachers
collapsed and that Atlas first, toppled the thrust from the result of bleachers falling had Defendant erected Leavitt bleachers. proof is no bleachers, sets there both any collapse than cause record school district’s other Certainly
negligence in erection. game swaying must re- football crowd testimony, garded, and antici- as a usual from this employment pated of the stands. feature of frequently of car A for held the driver haveWe injuring party proximate when C his *33 Reports. clearly A hit B that B alone facts showed Faber, 234 Mich Parks 217; Greenwold hit C. 443. Starks, 342 Mich in to a domino-like action refers
Defendant collapse contends that was of the stand and of the last dominos. We find no diffi- on one seated holding party culty act occa- in whose tortious injury for the domino, the fall of first sioned an party the fall the last. The hurt innocent chain reaction can of he “the started a indeed act which subsequent injury, provided proximate negligence templating injury cause” people in con- that reasonable was such subsequent might anticipate sort actually did occur. certainly contemplation reasonable within improperly-erected, heavily- collapse of might thrust” occasion “lateral bleachers loaded similarly similarly loaded, collapse of the similer abutting. immediately improperly-erected stands hold that defendant school district therefore We ques- city Birmingham was on the date of the tion “proprietary engaging function” sponsoring athletic for which admission of an contest escape liability charged, cannot and, hence, was negligent performed in relation contest to said acts immunity. ground hold We special question that the answer to further #2 jury, general of the with the verdict not inconsistent granting judge de- that the trial error and fendant’s judgment non motion for obstante. judgment he reversed' of the trial court should entry judgment' remanded for the the cause and upon appellant. jury. Costs verdict J. J., Edwards, Smith, concurred this; part no in the decision took J., Voelker, case.