| Mich. | Jan 5, 1881
The plaintiff sues the railroad company to recover compensation for an injury suffered by her in consequence of slipping and falling upon ice which had formed on a sidewalk in front of premises occupied by defendant in the city of Monroe, and which the defendant had failed to remove as required by law. It is not claimed that any such action would lie at the common law, and the right of recovery is supposed to arise from certain state and municipal legislation.
The state legislation in question is the general act for the incorporation of cities, passed in 1873, under which the city of Monroe is no w organized. Chapter XXIII of this act relates to the sidewalks. Section one gives the city council control of all sidewalks, with power to construct and maintain the same and charge the expense thereof upon the lots and premises adjacent to and abutting upon such walks. Section two empowers the council to require the owners and occupants of adjacent lots to construct and maintain sidewalks, and section three is as follows: “ The council shall also have power to cause and require the owners and occupants of any lot or premises to remove all snow and ice from the sidewalks in front of or adjacent to such lot and premises, and to keep the same free from obstructions, encroachments, incumbrances, filth, and other nuisances.”
Section four provides that if any owner or occupant shall fail to perform any duty required by the council in respect to sidewalks, the council may cause the same, to be performed,
Section six is as follows: “ If any owner, occupant, or person in charge of any lot or premises shall neglect to repair any sidewalk in front of or adjacent to such premises, or to remove any snow or ice therefrom, or to keep the same free from obstructions and incumbrances, in accordance with the requirements of the ordinances and regulations of the council, he shall be liable to the city for the amount of all damages which shall be recovered against the city for any accident or injury occurring by reason of such neglect.” General Laws 1873, pp. 244, 325, 326.
Acting under the authority conferred by this act, the city council adopted an ordinance whereby it was provided that the owner or occupant of any house or building, or person entitled to the possession of any vacant lot, or person m charge of any church or other public building, or any street, alley or public space, shall not permit the sidewalk and gutter adjoining the same to be obstructed by snow, ice, filth, dirt or other incumbrance, and where ice is formed on any sidewalk and gutter, such owners, occupants, or persons having charge, or entitled to possession of property adjoining, as above provided, shall within twenty-four hours after the same has formed remove the same or cause sand, sawdust or ashes to be strewn thereon.
The defendant, it is alleged, failed to remove within twenty-four hours as required by this ordinance, the ice which had formed on the sidewalk in front of its premises, and the plaintiff sustained a severe injury by slipping and falling thereon.
It is said on behalf of the plaintiff that the obligation to-keep the sidewalks free from snow and ice is imposed as a duty to all persons who may have occasion to use the walks in passing and repassing, and that the neglect to do so, in consequence of which any one lawfully using the walk is injured, is a neglect of duty to him, and entitles him on well-recognized principles to maintain an action. Couch v. Steel 3 El. & Bl. 402; Aldrich v. Howard 7 R. I. 214.
The nature of the duty and the benefits to be accomplished through its performance must generally determine whether it is a duty to the public in part or exclusively, or whether individuals may claim that it is a duty imposed wholly or in part for their especial benefit. In this case the duty was to keep the sidewalks free from obstructions. It will not be claimed that this was not a duty to the whole public of the city, and the disputed question is whether it is also a duty to each individual making use of the walks.
An obstruction by snow or ice may make the use of a walk dangerous, or may wholly preclude its use for the purpose for which walks are constructed. If the duty to keep the walk free from obstructions is a duty to individual travelers desiring to use it, it is as much broken when the walk is wholly obstructed as when it is capable of use but is dangerous, and an action will as much lie by one who is compelled to go around an obstruction, as by one who slips and falls in a dangerous place. Moreover as the lot owner is required to keep the walk free from all nuisances, an individual traveler who can maintain the proposition that this is a duty to him must be entitled to bring suit whenever the existence,of a nuisance diminishes either the comfort or the safety of the use of the walk by him. This view of the obligation of the lot owner would add greatly to his common-law liabilities,
But if we look a little further into the statute under which the city is incorporated, we shall see that all its provisions respecting sidewalks, so far as they impose duties upon the owners of adjoining or abutting lots, have one common object, namely, to provide suitable and safe passageways for foot passengers by the side of the public streets, and to keep these in condition for safe use. The expense of such ways is imposed on the owners of adjacent lots, and these owners must keep them free from encroachments. Will it be claimed that if the city council shall require a lot owner to construct a sidewalk in front of his premises, and he shall fail to obey the requirement, every person who should come upon the street desiring to pass on foot where the walk should be, and who shall be precluded from doing so by the walk not being constructed, may bring suit against the lot owner for the neglect to build it as a neglect of duty to the traveler himself ? He is damnified in that case as clearly as when he falls upon a dangerous walk and is hurt; though the damage may perhaps be insignificant.
But it is clear, we think, that the duty to build the walk is .only a public duty, and the duty to keep it in condition for use is also a public duty. Exactly what force is to be given to the provision of statute that the lot owner shall be liable to the city for all damages which the city may be compelled to pay for his default, we need not consider in this suit. It is enough to say here that an action grounded on that particular provision of the statute could only arise after the city had been rendered liable in a.suit against it.
If the statute contemplated public duties only, the city ordinance could not go further and give individual rights of action. But neither, we think, has it attempted to do so.
The judgment of the circuit court must stand affirmed with costs^,