Afman v. Kraker, 26.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 26.,26. |
| Parties | AFMAN v. KRAKER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Tyler Afman against Henry Kraker to recover property damage arising out of automobile collission. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed without new trial.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ottawa County; Fred T. Miles, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Steg J. Lignell, of Grand Rapids, for defendant and appellant.
Robert P. Scholte, of Grand Rapids, for plaintiff and appellee.
This is a suit to recover for property damage arising out of a motor vehicle collision. The only question for decision is whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The collision occurred about eleven o'clock in the forenoon of a dry, clear day in November, on dry pavement, at a street intersection in a residential district in the city of Holland. The two streets were of equal width (30 feet) between curbs, both blacktop pavement, neither street being a through highway or having priority as such. Plaintiff and defendant were the only eyewitnesses, and both testified. The case was tried without a jury, and defendant appeals from a judgment of $757 for plaintiff.
Plaintiff was approaching the intersection from the west on 14th street at about 20 miles per hour, and defendant was approaching from the north on Maple street. A house and a tree stood on the lot at the northwest corner of the intersection. This house was 18 feet west of the sidewalk on Maple street, and the west line of the sidewalk was 15 feet west of the curb, so the house stood 33 feet west of the west curb on Maple street. It stood 20 feet north of the north line of the curb on 14th street. This house and the tree interfered to some extent with the vision of both plaintiff and defendant in discovering the approach of each other's vehicles. Plaintiff was approaching the intersection on defendant's right, and defendant drove into the intersection without slowing down. For the purposes of this decision, we may assume that the defendant was guilty of negligence. Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law?
Plaintiff testified that when he was 50 or 60 feet west of the west crosswalk on Maple street, which would be from 65 to 75 feet west of the west curb line of Maple street, he looked to the north and saw no car approaching on Maple street. The house obstructed his view of defendant's approachingvehicle. He looked to the south (Maple street) and saw a truck at a considerable distance ‘plenty far enough away so I had lots of time to get across the street.’ Later, plaintiff testified:
From plaintiff's testimony it appears that defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krause v. Ryan, s. 30
... ... Analogous ... are Kerr v. Hayes, 250 Mich. 19, 229 N.W. 430; Block v. Peterson, supra; Koehler v. Thom, supra; and Afman v. Kraker, 305 Mich. 504, 9 N.W.2d 692, and others of like circumstance and import in which plaintiff drivers enjoying the statutory right of way at ... ...
-
Morrison v. Grass, s. 58
...negligence and precludes his recovery. ‘The judgment of the lower court is reversed, without a new trial.' In Afman v. Kraker, 305 Mich. 504, 9 N.W.2d 692, 693, we said: ‘Plaintiff says he figured that the defendant would give him the right of way. Apparently he figured wrong. Insisting on ......
- Janesick v. Osbon, 16.
-
Morrison v. City of Detroit, 9597.
...chief among which are Ayers v. Andary, 301 Mich. 418, 3 N.W.2d 328; Francis v. Rumsey, 303 Mich. 526, 6 N.W.2d 766, and Afman v. Kraker, 305 Mich. 504, 9 N.W.2d 692. In the Ayers case, plaintiff's driver was proceeding in an easterly direction and approaching a paved north-south intersectin......