Armstrong v. Cook

Decision Date07 March 1930
Docket NumberNo. 73.,73.
Citation229 N.W. 433,250 Mich. 180
PartiesARMSTRONG v. COOK et ux.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Major L. Dunham, Judge.

Action by Ida J. Armstrong against Ray G. Cook and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Reversed without new trial.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except McDONALD, J.Mason, Alexander & McCaslin and Clifford A. Mitts, all of Grand Rapids, for appellants.

William J. Landman and Fred P. Geib, both of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

CLARK, J.

Plaintiff was the guest or gratuitous passenger of her daughter Alice J. Cook, who was driving the car of her husband, the other defendant, Ray G. Cook. The mother sat in the back seat and the daughter in the front seat of the coupé. The mother and daughter had been working, moving household goods, and were on their way to the home of a friend for dinner. Driving south on Union avenue in Grand Rapids and coming to the intersection with Fulton street, the daughter brought the car to a stop, or almost to a stop, and then pushed the control into second. The car crossed the intersection, collided with a pole on the side of the street, and plaintiff was injured. The daughter was ‘tired,’ ‘rather tired,’ ‘tired and worn out.’ When she started to cross the intersection, she lost consciousness, or fainted, and recovered at the moment of the impact. Plaintiff had verdict and judgment. Defendants bring error.

There can be no recovery, no negligence of defendants being shown. Verdict for defendants ought to have been directed as requested.

If the daughter did not bring the car to a full stop at the intersection, if it continued to ‘move a little,’ it makes no difference, for this has no causal relation to the accident. The sole proximate cause of the accident was the daughter's fainting, or losing consciousness, which is not actionable negligence.

Reversed without new trial. Costs to defendants.

WIEST, C. J., and BUTZEL, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, and FEAD, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Freeman v. Martin
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 26 Julio 1967
    ...137, 138, 182 S.E. 631, 633. Cases presenting facts strikingly similar to that made by plaintiff's testimony here are Armstrong v. Cook, 250 Mich. 180, 229 N.W. 433, where the driver lost consciousness or fainted as she started to cross an intersection and a judgment against her for damages......
  • Harrington v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 20 Junio 1934
    ...75; Cohen v. Petty, 62 App. D. C. 187, 65 F.(2d) 820;Bushnell v. Bushnell, 103 Conn. 583, 131 A. 432, 44 A. L. R. 785;Armstrong v. Cook, 250 Mich. 180, 229 N. W. 433; 42 C. J. 890. Counsel for plaintiff argue that there were contradictions in Thompson's testimony, but we are unable to agree......
  • Holmes v. McNeil
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Mayo 1947
    ...... and Practice," sec. 656, p. 468; Orlann v. Laederich, 338 Mo. 783, 92 S.W.2d 190; Cohen v. Petty, 65 F.2d 820; Armstrong v. Cook, 250. Mich. 180, 229 N.W. 433; La Vigne v. La Vigne, 158. P.2d 557; Bushnell v. Bushnell, 103 Conn. 583, 131. A. 432; Thayer v. Thayer, ......
  • Holmes v. McNeil, 39883.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Mayo 1947
    ...Law and Practice," sec. 656, p. 468; Orlann v. Laederich, 338 Mo. 783, 92 S.W. (2d) 190; Cohen v. Petty, 65 F. (2d) 820; Armstrong v. Cook, 250 Mich. 180, 229 N.W. 433; La Vigne v. La Vigne, 158 Pac. (2d) 557; Bushnell v. Bushnell, 103 Conn. 583, 131 Atl. 432; Thayer v. Thayer, 286 Mich. 27......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT