Goree v. Russell
| Decision Date | 13 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 2320,1 |
| Citation | 151 N.W.2d 176,7 Mich.App. 79 |
| Parties | Calvin GOREE and Margaret Goree, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Alfonsa RUSSELL, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Julius M. Grossbart, Leithauser & Grossbart, Detroit, for appellants.
Thomas H. Cannon, Marentay, Rouse, Selby, Webber & Dickinson, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and T. G. KAVANAGH and QUINN, JJ.
Plaintiff Margaret Goree was a guest passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant when he lost control of the vehicle and struck a utility pole.
There was testimony by plaintiff at the trial that despite objections by other passengers, defendant was racing with another vehicle and traveling at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff further testified that, just prior to the accident, defendant had come to a complete stop for a red traffic signal and that after the light changed, defendant again took up the chase, attempted a left turn at a high rate of speed, and collided with the pole.
At the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the basis that no gross negligence was established. In granting this motion the trial court ruled as a matter of law that if any gross negligence had existed on the part of the defendant, it stopped, with him, at the traffic light. The court also ruled as a matter of law that from the time defendant left the light until he struck the pole there was not sufficient evidence of gross negligence to submit the question to the jury.
We hold that it was reversible error so to rule.
We have reviewed all the evidence presented, as we are constrained to do, in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Humenik v. Sternberg (1963), 371 Mich. 667, 124 N.W.2d 778.
The uncontroverted evidence is that defendant was engaged in a race with a third party, was asked to stop by his passengers, did stop temporarily at a traffic signal, then again took up the chase and crashed. There also was evidence that the impact knocked the wheels off and the motor loose from defendant's vehicle.
We cannot say as a matter of law that the jury, from this evidence, could not have found the elements of gross negligence laid down by the Court in McLone v. Bean (1933), 263 Mich. 113, 115, 248 N.W. 566, as follows:
'(1) Knowledge of a situation requiring the exercise of ordinary care and diligence to avert injury to another; (2) ability to avoid the resulting harm by ordinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Buder
...of deliberately reckless acts wholly disassociated from the ordinary incidents of operating a motor vehicle. Compare Goree v. Russell (1967), 7 Mich.App. 79, 151 N.W.2d 176; Rowe v. Vander Kolk (1936), 278 Mich. 564, 569, 270 N.W. 788; Schlacter v. Harbin (1935), 273 Mich. 465, 469, 263 N.W......
-
Huhtala v. Anderson, Docket No. 4781
...717; Kroll v. katz (1965), 374 Mich. 364, 132 N.W.2d 27; Emons v. Shiraef (1960), 359 Mich. 526, 102 N.W.2d 490; Goree v. Russell (1967), 7 Mich.App. 79, 151 N.W.2d 176. Defendant submitted no reply brief on this Since the guest passenger statute and the court's instructions envision liabil......
-
Citizens Commercial and Sav. Bank v. Gambill, Docket No. 5363
...Tien v. Barkel (1958), 351 Mich. 276, 88 N.W.2d 552; Huhtala v. Anderson (1969), 15 Mich.App. 693, 167 N.W.2d 352; Goree v. Russell (1967), 7 Mich.App. 79, 151 N.W.2d 176; Coon v. Williams (1966), 4 Mich.App. 325, 144 N.W.2d 821; and cases cited therein. Considering the totality of circumst......