Adelsperger v. City of Detroit
| Decision Date | 03 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 88.,88. |
| Citation | 227 N.W. 694,248 Mich. 399 |
| Parties | ADELSPERGER v. CITY OF DETROIT et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; William B. Brown, Judge.
Action by Cecille Adelsperger against the City of Detroit and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench. Clarence E. Wilcox, Corp. Counsel, William J. McBrearty, and Peter J. Drexelius, all of Detroit, for appellants.
Lodge & Brown, of Detroit, for appellee.
The jury found that plaintiff's personal injuries were caused proximately by negligence of defendant city and assessed damages at $7,500. Defendant brings error and presents many questions, all of which have been considered, some of which will be discussed.
[1] 1. The chief contention is that verdict ought to have been directed for defendant on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on its part. On this question the evidence must be viewed most favorably to plaintiff. Plaintiff was a passenger for hire in a motorbus of defendant on one of its streets. Seats of the bus were occupied and plaintiff was standing, holding a handrail above. Overtaking a Ford car, the driver of the bus sought to pass and was not accommodated. Continuing his effort to pass for nearly three blocks, the driver became angry. There is evidence that the bus moved at excessive and unlawful speed, 30 to 35 miles per hour, that it swayed, that it was very close to the Ford car, as close as five feet, that passengers protested and frequently sounded the buzzer, and that a movement of the Ford toward an intersecting street caused the driver of the bus to make sudden application of brakes and a sudden turn of the steering wheel. He testified: ‘I knew from the suddenness of my stop and jamming on of both brakes and the suddenness with which I twisted the wheel that if passengers were standing in the aisle, they would possibly be propelled forward or fall or something happen to them, if they were not hanging on.'
Plaintiff fell, and there is evidence that she suffered serious and permanent injuries.
Defendant contends that there was here a sudden and unforeseen peril, and that the driver was compelled to do what he did in order to avoid collision, and that therefore there is no negligence, citing Ottinger v. D. U. R., 166 Mich. 106, 131 N. W. 528,34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 225, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 578;Clifford v. D. U. R., 216 Mich. 377, 185 N. W. 741; and other like cases. In the instant case there is evidence of excessive and unlawful speed, which might be found to have important bearing on the suddenness and violence of the stopping and of the swerving of the bus, and hence a causal relation to plaintiff's injuries. A peril produced, in part at least, by defendant's negligence, does not excuse the negligence. The case was for the jury. See notes, 4 A. L. R. 1499; 31 A. L. R. 1202; 45 A. L. R. 297; 25 N. C. C. A. 423; Kriss v. Field, 241 Mich. 42, 216 N. W. 460;Borski v. City of Wakefield, 239 Mich. 656, 215 N. W. 19.
2. It is said the verdict is excessive. When on this ground the court may vacate a judgment or require reduction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hickey v. Zezulka
...to fruition. "A peril produced in part, at least, by defendant's negligence does not excuse the negligence." Adelsperger v. Detroit, 248 Mich. 399, 402, 227 N.W. 694 (1929). Therefore, an instruction to the jury that, after finding Zezulka negligent, it could relieve Zezulka of liability fo......
-
Mitcham v. City of Detroit
...by passengers against public carriers in cases of this nature we think is sufficiently demonstrated by cases like Adelsperger v. City of Detroit, 248 Mich. 399, 227 N.W. 694 and Routhier v. City of Detroit, 338 Mich. 449, 61 N.W.2D 593, 40 A.L.R.2d 1114. In those cases we concede that plain......
-
Kasza v. City of Detroit, 122
...negligence of defendant's driver and proximate cause. Mitcham v. City of Detroit, 355 Mich. 182, 94 N.W.2d 388; Adelsperger v. City of Detroit, 248 Mich. 399, 227 N.W. 694; Fish v. Grand Trunk Western Railway, 275 Mich. 718, 269 N.W. 568, Routhier v. City of Detroit, 338 Mich. 449, 61 N.W.2......
-
Barnett v. City of Detroit
...sudden stop or start of the motor vehicle, then a question of fact may arise for jury determination. Adelsperger v. City of Detroit, 1929, 248 Mich. 399, 227 N. W. 694; Longfellow v. City of Detroit, 1942, 302 Mich. 542, 5 N.W.2d 457; Routhier v. City of Detroit, 1953, 338 Mich. 449, 61 N.W......