Longfellow v. City of Detroit, s. 42

• Decision Date: 08 September 1942
• Docket Number: Nos. 42,43.,s. 42
• Citation: 5 N.W.2d 457,302 Mich. 542
• Parties: LONGFELLOW v. CITY OF DETROIT (Two cases).
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

302 Mich. 542

5 N.W.2d 457

LONGFELLOW

v.CITY OF DETROIT (Two cases).

Nos. 42, 43.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 8, 1942.

Action by Wilhelmia Longfellow against City of Detroit (Department of Street Railways), a municipal corporation, for injuries sustained while riding on one of defendant's buses, which action was consolidated with an action by Albert Longfellow against City of Detroit (Department of Street Railways) a municipal corporation, for loss of his wife's services and medical expenses. From judgments for defendant entered after jury had failed to agree and been discharged, plaintiffs appeal.

Judgments reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Frank Day Smith, judge.

Before the Entire Bench, except WEIST, J.

Donovan A. Wright and J. Frederick Wilson, both of Detroit, for appellants.

Leo A. Sullivan, of Detroit (Rodney Baxter, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.

CHANDLER, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff, Wilhelmia Longfellow, instituted her action against the defendant to recover damages for injuries received while riding on one of defendant's buses on Grand River Avenue in the City of Detroit. Her action was concolidated with one brought by plaintiff, Albert Longfellow, her husband, to recover for loss of services and medical expenses, and both cases are here for review.

The jury failed to agree, and after being discharged, the trial court entered judgments for defendant under the authority of the provisions of 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 14535, Stat.Ann. § 27,1471, and on appeal, we must review the testimony in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Poundstone v. Niles Creamery, 293 Mich. 455, 292 N.W. 367.

According to the testimony adduced by plaintiffs, on August 23, 1938, Wilhelmia Longfellow was a passenger on one of defendant's buses proceeding in a northwesterly direction on Grand River Avenue. She intended to alight at the bus stop located at the intersection of said avenue with Beverly Court. Immediately after passing Martindale, the first intersecting street south of Beverly Court, she signaled the operator of the bus her desire to get off at the next stop. She then walked to the front of the vehicle where she stood facing the door on the northeast side of the bus. She was carrying a parcel under her left arm and a purse in her left hand. With her right hand, she grasped a post installed at the right of the exist. Standing in this position, she could look out the door to the northeast curb of the street, but could not see out the front of the bus.

In discharging passengers at Beverly Court, the buses cross the intersection and stop at the curb on the northeast corner.

Plaintiff testified that the bus was being driven in the street car tracks in the middle of the street and that prior to approaching Beverly Court it was proceeding at a speed of approximately 35 miles per hour. She stated that after giving the signal to stop and leaving her seat to go to the front of the bus, she ‘felt’ the speed decrease and that at the time it was ready to enter the intersection the speed had been reduced to about 30 miles per hour. She further testified that after the bus had passed the point where pedestrians cross Grand River at the south side of Beverly Court, it came to a sudden stop, without warning, which caused her to lose her grip on the post and threw her against the bus with resulting injuries.

It was demonstrated that the coach stopped at a point 32 feet beyond the place where vehicles usually stop for a red traffic signal at Beverly Court and some 40 feet short of the usual bus stop for passengers wishing to be discharged at this intersection. It was also shown that the accident occurred in a ‘business district’ within the meaning of that term as used in the statutes and the ordinances of the City of Detroit pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles.

After the stop, plaintiff set down. She could then see out the front of the bus and observed that the traffic control signal showed red against traffic in the direction the bus was traveling. At this...