Blake v. Brama, 12

Citation72 N.W.2d 10,343 Mich. 27
Decision Date03 October 1955
Docket NumberNo. 12,12
PartiesAnna Bello BLAKE, Administratrix with Will Annexed of the Estate of Wayne Earl Blake, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Abramo BRAMA, as Administrator of the Estate of Ludwig Brama, Deceased, Defendant and Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

Hutson & Merritt, Royal Oak, Cary & BeGole, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.

Moll, Desenberg, Purdy & Glover, Detroit, for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

BOYLES, Justice.

Plaintiff, administratrix with will annexed of the estate of Wayne Earl Blake, deceased, brought this suit in the circuit court for Wayne county against the defendant as administrator of the estate of Ludwig Brama, deceased, to recover damages for the death of Blake caused by an automobile collision, which occurred in Nebraska. The case was tried in Wayne county by jury and at the conclusion of the plaintiff's proofs the trial judge granted a motion of the defendant for a directed verdict of no cause for action. Judgment for the defendant was entered accordingly, from which plaintiff appeals.

Defendant's motion was planted on 3 grounds--that the plaintiff had not introduced sufficient proof to go to the jury (1) as to who was driving the defendant automobile at the time of the accident or (2) to show gross negligence under the Nebraska guest statute; and (3) even if it was shown that the defendant's decedent was driving the car, plaintiff's decedent had assumed the risk of excessive speed. The court charged the jury that there was sufficient proof to submit plaintiff's proofs to the jury as to the first and second questions raised, as issues of fact, but directed a verdict for the defendant on the third ground that under the Nebraska law the plaintiff's decedent had assumed the risk of the manner in which the defendant's decedent was driving the car when the accident occurred. The court also said, 'at least they were engaged in a joint enterprise,' but that question is not raised or briefed here on the appeal. Of course the plaintiff-appellant agrees here with the trial judge in holding with the plaintiff on the first 2 questions raised on the motion--that there was sufficient proof to go to the jury as to who was driving the car, and as to gross negligence of the defendant's decedent. But plaintiff-appellant disagrees with the trial court's holding that plaintiff's decedent, as a matter of law, had assumed the risk of the defendant's decedent having been grossly negligent in driving at an excessive rate of speed when trying to pass to the left of another automobile on the highway.

The defendant-appellee argues here that even if the trial court gave a wrong reason by directing a verdict for the defendant on the third question raised in the motion, nonetheless the directed verdict for the defendant should stand, on either 1 or both of the other 2 grounds urged by the defendant for a directed verdict.

Necessarily, decision here must depend on the facts as adduced by the plaintiff, and the Nebraska law to be applied. For the purposes of decision on the motion for a directed verdict, plaintiff's proofs must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. On or about September 8, 1950, the 2 decedents, Blake and Brama, left Michigan in the automobile of the defendant's decedent, Brama, on a hunting trip to Wyoming. They were to take turns driving. There was testimony tending to show that when they arrived at a point about a mile west of Cody, Nebraska, on US-20, defendant's decedent was driving. However, this is a question of fact now disputed by the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff that the car was being driven at a very high rate of speed, claimed to have been 85 miles per hour, is also now disputed. Plaintiff's proofs show that the defendant's decedent driver attempted to go to the left of another car traveling in the same direction approximately 15 miles per hour, the driver of which had signaled intention to make a left turn into a connecting highway. Mr. Wobig, the driver of the slower car, a Ford pickup truck, testified:

'I was going up the highway and I looked back and seen this car coming a considerable distance, three or four hundred yards to the rear; I had a short distance to travel before it would be reasonable to signal; just a short distance, 150 feet or so, then I started my signal for a left-hand turn, straight out, like that (witness demonstrated arm signal); as I approached the turn I was moving up toward the center of the road, I started to turn past the center of the road and I kind of took a half look to see how close this car would be--it was up to the back end of my pickup--within about 3 feet of the back end of my pickup, clear over to the extreme left side of the highway, going around me; I tried to stop, and this car, the car from Michigan, kind of swayed over and caught my bumper and the fender on my pickup and then it kept going; it went across the intersection and 1 wheel went over the edge of the highway; went up the shoulder of the highway for--oh--250 feet; then it was pulled back to the center of the highway where it turned over about 3 times; there was so much dust I couldn't just exactly see it all. * * *

'Q. And to your best judgment, about how far were you from the place where you would turn south across the highway when you first saw this car coming from the east? A. Well, it was quite a ways back down the road when I first saw it; I looked back before I got anywheres near the turn off, of--oh--I would say it was 300 or 400 yards possibly more, back.

'Q. Then after you saw it that far back, about how far did you travel before you started to turn to the left? A. Well, I moved up a short distance otherwise it would be too long a signal; I didn't think that was necessary; so I moved up; possibly 150 feet before I started my signal, then I signalled for a city block, or better...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Abendschein v. Farrell
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • July 20, 1968
    ... ... Leona was killed in the crash. Darrell, 12 years old, and Penny, 19 years old, were severely injured ...         Plaintiff Earl ... Leebove v. Rovin (1961), 363 Mich. 569, 111 N.W.2d 104; Blake v. Brama (1955), 343 Mich. 27, 72 N.W.2d 10; Slayton v. Boesch (1946), 315 Mich. 1, 23 N.W.2d 134 ... ...
  • Welty's Estate v. Wolf's Estate
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1956
    ... ... Froehlich, 218 Mich. 459, 462, 188 N.W. 426; Koob v. Lansing, 321 Mich. 150, 32 N.W.2d 373; Blake v. Brama, 343 Mich. 27, 32, 72 N.W.2d 10 ...         Second: Harold Cooper, residing at ... ...
  • Trager v. Thor
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1994
    ... ... Robert Thor, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 96434 ... Calendar No. 12, March Term ... Supreme Court of Michigan ... Argued March 9, 1994 ... Decided May 17, 1994 ... these principles to the instant case, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Blake v. Brama, 343 Mich. 27, 29, 72 N.W.2d 10 [445 Mich. 107] (1955), we find sufficient allegations ... ...

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