Angstman v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 04 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. 131.,131.
• Citation: 241 N.W. 909,258 Mich. 195
• Parties: ANGSTMAN v. WILSON et al. (two cases).
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

258 Mich. 195

241 N.W. 909

ANGSTMAN

v.WILSON et al. (two cases).

No. 131.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 4, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Jesse H. Root, Judge.

Separate actions by Roger W. Angstman and by his wife, Genevieve C. Angstman, against Ira Wilson and others, doing business as Ira A. Wilson & Sons. Judgments for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Charles C. Conklin, of Detroit (Don W. Van Winkle, and W. E. Robb, both of Howell, and Seth Q. Pulver, of Owosso, of counsel), for appellants.

John Hal Engel, of Detroit (Edmund E. Shepherd, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees.

NORTH, J.

These combined suits are for damages arising out of an automobile accident which occurred about 3 a. m., April 5, 1925, at or near the intersection of Woodward avenue and Twelve Mile road in the village of Royal Oak. The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Angstman, were returning from Detroit to their home and going in a northerly direction on Woodward avenue. He testified they were driving about twenty miles per hour and when within thirty-five or forty feet of the point of accident discovered defendants' truck standing on the easterly side of the pavement which was about eighteen feet in width. There was no light on the rear of the truck, which was in charge of an intoxicated driver. Defendants' negligence conclusively appears from the record. Plaintiffs claim that as soon as Mr. Angstman observed the truck on the highway ahead of him he applied his brakes to his automobile, but without its rate of speed being diminished it ‘slid’ ahead and collided with the right-hand rear corner of defendants' truck. Mr. Angstman attempted to pass the truck on the right, where there was an intervening space between the pavement and the interurban railway tracks about ten feet in width. He testified that he ‘attempted to miss the truck-in fact I almost did.’ The force of the impact was such that it practically wrecked the body of Mr. Angstman's car, the most of the damage being to the left-hand side. The front axle was bent and the frame sprung. The automobile was equipped with four-wheel brakes which were in good condition. Under Mr. Angstman's testimony his car normally could have been stopped within forty-five or fifty feet at the rate he testified he was driving. It is plaintiffs' theory that Mr. Angstman's inability to stop his car was due to the fact that there was grease or oil upon the pavement; and that he was not aware of this fact and though he exercised reasonable care he did not ascertain such to be the condition of the highway. Notwithstanding it was a very dark night, plaintiffs' testimony is that in driving all the way from Detroit to the point of accident they used only their dim lights. With these they could see ahead from forty to fifty feet. There were lights along the highway, but plaintiffs claim these were of no material aid to them. Their automobile was equipped with bright lights which, if they had been used, would have enabled the driver to see approximately seventy-five feet ahead of the car. In this connection Mr. Angstman testified.

‘Q. If you had your bright lights on at that time you would have seen it (the truck) a little sooner, would you not? A. Unquestionably.

‘Q. Perhaps 24 to 30 feet? A. Perhaps just the distance between 75 and 45 or 50.

‘Q. Had you had your bright lights on you would have had a greater opportunity to bring your car to a stop, would you not? A. Yes sir.’

At the conclusion of the proofs defendants moved for a directed verdict on the ground that Mr. Angstman was guilty of contributory negligence. Decision was reserved. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs. Thereafter defendants moved for judgment non obstante. The motion was denied and judgments entered for the respective plaintiffs. Defendants' appeal presents the question as to whether the trial court should have directed a verdict against the plaintiffs on the ground of contributory negligence.

At the point of accident the maximum rate of speed was 20 miles per hour; and as to lights the statute (Act No. 3, Pub. Acts 1921, Second Extra Session) required the driver of an automobile to have two front lights which would render ‘any substantial object clearly discernible on a level highway at least two hundred feet directly ahead.’ (For amendments, see 1 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 4736 and 4738; also, Act No. 59, Pub. Acts 1931.) On the night in question Mr. Angstman was admittedly driving at substantially the maximum rate of speed. The highway was level. His view ahead was unobstructed. There were no other vehicles upon the highway bearing lights which in any way interfered with his vision. It seems too clear for argument that if he had been driving with...