Beebe v. Hannett
Decision Date | 19 July 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 72.,72. |
Citation | 194 N.W. 542,224 Mich. 88 |
Parties | BEEBE v. HANNETT. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Isabella County; Ray Hart, Judge.
Action by Clarence Beebe against Thomas Hannett. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded, with direction.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.F. H. Dusenbury and James E. Ryan, both of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.
Dodds & Dodds, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellee.
Plaintiff was driving his automobile along a public highway in the evening of August 5, 1922, at an hour when, as provided by Act 3, Public Acts of 1921, Second Extra Session, he was required to have a lighted lamp mounted on each side of the front of the automobile. He had but one such lighted lamp, that on the left side. He observed defendant's automobile approaching from the opposite direction. It had the lighted lamps required by statute and in addition a spot light focused on its right side of the road. Plaintiff testified that before meeting defendant's automobile he turned seasonably to the right of the road, and he further testified:
Plaintiff had corroborating testimony. The automobiles collided. Plaintiff's automobile was damaged. Defendant's driver testified:
‘
‘
He also testified that the light on plaintiff's approaching automobile was blinding, strong, bad; that ‘I couldn't decide whether he was a half mile away or whether it was a motorcycle;’ and that he was deceived in the distance. There was testimony from other occupants of defendant's automobile that plaintiff's light was not ‘very bright,’ was ‘reasonably bright.’ When plaintiff rested, defendant made a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, in not having two lights as required by the statute. The motion was denied and renewed at the conclusion of proof and decision reserved. Plaintiff had verdict. On motion judgment was ordered and entered for defendant notwithstanding the verdict; the court holding that plaintiff's said failure to obey the statute as regards lights was negligence per se precluding recovery. Plaintiff brings error.
Before plaintiff's violation of the statute, in failing to have a lighted lamp on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Edwards v. Woods
... ... Hanna, 253 S.W. 808; Dewolf v. Stix, Baer & Fuller, 240 S.W. 1094; Pugley v. Tyler, 197 ... S.W. 1177; Fern v. Clark, 104 P. 632; Beebe" v ... Hannett, 194 N.W. 542; Thomas v. Stevenson, 178 ... N.W. 1021; Hardie v. Barrett, 101 A. 75; Turner v ... Bennett, 142 N.W. 999 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Wolfgram v. Valko
...that a jury question of fact was presented as to whether decedent's negligence was a proximate cause, plaintiff cites Beebe v. Hannett, 224 Mich. 88, 194 N.W. 542, Gleason v. Lowe, 232 Mich. 300, 205 N.W. 199, and Cookson v. Humphrey, 355 Mich. 296, 93 N.W.2d 903. They do not support it. In......
-
Van Wormer v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc.
...of his violation of the statute. This case is to be distinguished from Hanser v. Youngs, 212 Mich. 508, 180 N.W. 409; Beebe v. Hannett, 224 Mich. 88, 194 N.W. 542;Arvo v. Delta Hardware Co., 231 Mich. 488, 204 N.W. 134;Gleason v. Lowe, 232 Mich. 300, 205 N.W. 199;Sahms v. Marcus, 239 Mich. ......
-
Suarez v. Katon
...Stat.Ann. § 9.1604), hereinafter quoted, would not preclude recovery unless it was a proximate cause of the accident. Beebe v. Hannett, 224 Mich. 88, 194 N.W. 542; and Arvo v. Delta Hardware Co., 231 Mich. 488, 204 N.W. 134. See, also, Reetz v. Schemansky, 278 Mich. 626, 270 N.W. 811.’ In B......