Sting v. Davis, Docket No. 7248
| Decision Date | 27 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 7248,3 |
| Citation | 177 N.W.2d 203,22 Mich.App. 373 |
| Parties | Edgar STING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norman DAVIS, Kenneth Harrington, and Louise Harrington, Defendants- Appellants |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Webster Cook, Smith, Brooker, Harvey & Cook, Saginaw, for defendants-appellants.
van Benschoten & van Benschoten, Saginaw, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and DANHOF and ROOD, * JJ.
This case arises from an automobile accident which occurred in the pre-dawn hours of August 5, 1962, in Saginaw County, Michigan. Plaintiff was driving north on Davis Road at about 35 miles per hour. Defendant, Norman Davis, was driving south in a vehicle owned by defendants Kenneth and Louise Harrington at about 50 miles per hour. North of where the collision occurred, Davis swerved his vehicle off the road to the right allegedly in an effort to avoid hitting a dog. The Davis vehicle continued in a southerly direction partially off the road until it suddenly veered back on the road, crossed the center line and collided with the Sting vehicle, thereby injuring plaintiff.
Plaintiff, in his action, alleged negligence against Defendant Davis and negligent entrustment against defendants Harrington in light of Davis' poor driving record. Defendants answered that Davis was free from negligence in that the dog allegedly created a sudden emergency and further alleged contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff in failing to make an effort to avoid the collision.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $50,000. From a denial of motion for new trial or remittitur, defendants appeal.
On appeal, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to give the defendants' requested instructions as to contributory negligence.
A review of the charge as given by the trial court convinces this Court that said charge was more than adequate.
The charge as given had all the essential ingredients without the excessive verbiage sought by the defendants; and so long as the charge covers those essentials, neither party has a right to demand any particular language of exact form. Taylor v. Hannon-Colvin Post 180 of American Legion (1967), 6 Mich.App. 398, 149 N.W.2d 210; Cooper v. Tranter Manufacturing, Inc. (1966), 4 Mich.App. 71, 143 N.W.2d 772.
The defendants also contend that the trial court erred in allowing the cross-examination of defendant, Davis,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sting v. Davis
...Entire Bench. ADAMS, Justice. The facts and proceedings in this case, as stated in a per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals (22 Mich.App. 373, 177 N.W.2d 203), affirming the trial court, are as 'This case arises from an automobile accident which occurred in the pre-dawn hours of August ......