43 N.W.2d 839 (Mich. 1950), 27, Clark v. Naufel

Docket Nº:27.
Citation:43 N.W.2d 839, 328 Mich. 249
Opinion Judge:NORTH, Justice.
Party Name:CLARK v. NAUFEL et al.
Attorney:[328 Mich. 250] Alexander Cholette, Buchanan, Perkins & Conklin, by Robert E. Fox, Detroit, for appellant. Edward N. Barnard, Detroit, for appellee.
Judge Panel:Before the Entire Bench.
Case Date:September 11, 1950
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 839

43 N.W.2d 839 (Mich. 1950)

328 Mich. 249

CLARK

v.

NAUFEL et al.

No. 27.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

September 11, 1950

[328 Mich. 250] Alexander Cholette, Buchanan, Perkins & Conklin, by Robert E. Fox, Detroit, for appellant.

Edward N. Barnard, Detroit, for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

NORTH, Justice.

This is an intersection automobile accident case. On trial by jury plaintiff had verdict and judgment thereon. Defendant James C. Naufel has appealed. Plaintiff's case against defendants Sanford was dismissed by stipulation.

The collision occurred in the afternoon of June 30, 1945, at the intersection of Wyoming avenue and West Outer drive, in the city of Detroit. Both streets are paved. There were no abnormal conditions as to pavement, weather, or traffic. Wyoming [328 Mich. 251] avenue extends north and south and intersects West Outer drive at right angles. Plaintiff was proceeding south on Wyoming, while defendant was approaching the intersection from the west on Outer drive, which just west of the intersection is divided into a west lane of traffic 36 feet wide and an east lane of traffic 36 feet wide. The east and west lanes of traffic at this intersection are divided by so-called islands. This intervening island space is about 38 feet in width. At the trial it was assumed that the southerly or east bound portion of Outer drive was divided into three equal lanes for traffic, each 12 feet wide.

Plaintiff testified that as she approached the intersection from the north she stopped and made an observation for traffic when at the north curb line of Outer drive. Then

Page 840

she proceeded, crossed the northerly or west bound traffic lane of Outer drive to a point where the island would be at her right and the front of her car about even with the southerly edge of the island. There she stopped a second time and made an observation to her right. At this point she had a view to her right of 100 to 125 or 150 feet, and it might have been a little more. Shrubbery on the island space obstructed further view at this point, and plaintiff's view was also restricted in consequence of a curve to the north in the highway about 275 feet to the west of plaintiff's position. A further material circumstance disclosed by the record is that when defendant's automobile was first observed by plaintiff he had proceeded only about 200 feet after he had rounded the curve in Outer drive. If, as some of the testimony disclosed, defendant was driving 55 to 60 miles per hour, at most his car had been within plaintiff's possible range of vision only two or three seconds. Plaintiff, after looking and seeing no approaching traffic, started to cross the southerly...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP