Trent v. Pontiac Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 47.,47. |
| Citation | 281 Mich. 586,275 N.W. 501 |
| Parties | TRENT v. PONTIAC TRANSP. CO., Inc. (two cases). |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Actions by Imogene Trent, by Roxie Trent, her next friend, and by Roxie Trent against the Pontiac Transportation Company, Inc. From judgments for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County; Frank L. Doty, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Albert Summer and Elmer H. Groefsema, both of Detroit, for appellants.
Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellee.
Both of these cases were tried together by agreement of counsel. They are actions by a mother and minor daughter for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while they were passengers for hire on the motorbus of the defendant on the 29th day of October, 1935. While being transported along the streets of Pontiac, one of the rear wheels of the bus came off, and both plaintiffs received injuries for which these actions were instituted.
The same questions of law are involved in both cases. The defendant by its answer gave notice of affirmative defense as follows: ‘Take notice that at the time of the trial of this cause, defendant will introduce in evidence and insist in its defense that the axle in the bus owned and operated by the defendant herein was at the time of the occurrence of the grievance herein complained of in excellent mechanical condition, had been regularly and properly inspected and that the wheel falling from off said bus was caused by a latent defect in the axle shaft of the said bus, the said bus was manufactured by the Chevrolet Motor Car Company.’
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' cases, the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the mere happening of the accident, a wheel coming off the bus, was not in itself evidence of negligence, and that there were no circumstances in connection with it whereby any legitimate inferences of negligence could be drawn.
In this the court was in error. The defendant, being engaged in the transportation of passengers for hire, owed to plaintiffs the exercise of a high degree of care, DeJager v. Andringa, 241 Mich. 474, 217 N.W. 332, and should be held responsible for a lack of exercise of such diligence as would ordinarily be used by a common carrier in the inspection of its equipment for defects.
And although the mere happening of an accident is not of itself evidence of negligence, the law does not place upon the passenger the burden of demonstrating the exact breach of duty committed by the carrier, such facts often times being solely within the knowledge of the latter. Negligence may be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances where they are such as to remove the case from surmise and conjecture and place it within the field of legitimate inferences deduced from the established facts. We think defendant recognized this rule and hence gave notice of its affirmative defense, that is, that it would show that the bus owned and operated by it at the time of this accident ‘was in excellent mechanical condition, had been regularly and properly inspected, and that the wheel falling off said bus was caused by a latent defect in the axle shaft of said bus.’
In the instant cases there were facts and circumstances presented in addition to the occurrence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schultz v. Consumers Power Co.
...pp. 326-332. Lastly, a carrier owes to its passengers the duty of discovering all detectable defects. Trent v. Pontiac Transportation Co., Inc., 281 Mich. 586, 275 N.W. 501 (1937). Similarly, compelling reasons mandate that a company that maintains and employs energized power lines must exe......
-
Mitcham v. City of Detroit
...the facts, we think is sufficiently demonstrated by cases like Durfey v. Milligan, 265 Mich. 97, 251 N.W. 356 and Trent v. Pontiac Transp. Co., 281 Mich. 586, 275 N.W. 501 (citing cases). See also Crase v. City of Detroit, 341 Mich. 132, 67 N.W.2d 93. (Incidentally, in the rather factually ......
-
Case v. Consumers Power Co.
...pp. 326-332. Lastly, a carrier owes to its passengers the duty of discovering all detectable defects. Trent v. Pontiac Transportation Co., Inc., 281 Mich. 586, 275 N.W. 501 (1937). Similarly, compelling reasons mandate that a company that maintains and employs energized power lines must exe......
-
Moncrief v. City of Detroit
...and conjecture and place it within the field of legitimate inferences deduced from the established facts.' Trent v. Pontiac Transportation Co., 281 Mich. 586, 588, 275 N.W. 501 (1937). Similarly, Durfey v. Milligan, 265 Mich. 97, 100, 251 N.W. 356 ...