Legal Opinion

Barnowsky v. Helson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1891PublishedCited by 76 opinions

Error to -Wayne. (Reilly, J.) Negligence case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

In this case the falling of the roof was in and of itself some evidence that the work of raising it was not being done with the ordinary care and skill. It *525is true that the mere fact of an injury does not impute negligence on the part of any one, but, where a thing happens which would not ordinarily have occurred if due care had been used, the fact of such happening raises a presumption of negligence in some one. For instance, if the wall of a building falls down, and injures a person, walking along the street or standing beside the building, the clear presumption is that the building was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Alpern v. ChurchillMichigan Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. Mitcham v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Schoepper v. Hancock Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Blanton v. DolbSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
  4. Jones v. PorrettaMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Burghardt v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1919

71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API