Brodie v. City of Detroit, 80.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1936
• Docket Number: No. 80.,80.
• Citation: 267 N.W. 576,275 Mich. 626
• Parties: BRODIE v. CITY OF DETROIT et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

275 Mich. 626

267 N.W. 576

BRODIE

v.CITY OF DETROIT et al.

No. 80.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 4, 1936.

Action by Sam Brodie against the City of Detroit, a municipal corporation, and others. From a judgment entered on a directed verdict for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Arthur Webster, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

William Cohen and Morris Luskin, both of Detroit (John Sklar, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Rodney Baxter and Wm. J. McBrearty, both of Detroit (James S. Shields, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees.

FEAD, Justice.

The question is whether the court erred in directing a verdict for defendants on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Grace Hospital in Detroit is located on the east side of John R. street, which runs north and south and is a busy thoroughfare, with heavy motor vehicle traffic. Opposite the hospital is a nurses' home. A 10-foot traffic lane for pedestrians is marked across John R. street at that point, with ‘No Parking’ signs at the curb. From the north marker of the lane to Willis street on the north is estimated at from 30 to 100 feet. John R. street is about 42 feet wide between curbs.

Plaintiff rode south on John R. street in a bus which stopped at the north edge of the pedestrian lane and alongside a parked car. This brought the left side of the bus close to the center of the street. Plaintiff disembarked, walked around the front of the bus to go east to the hospital, took four to six steps beyond the bus and was struck by another bus, belonging to the city and driven by defendant Locke, which came from the north, passed the standing bus at a distance from it of about a foot, and was traveling at estimated speed varying from 10 to 20 miles per hour.

Before plaintiff attempted to cross the street and while in front of the standing bus he looked to the right, south, saw approaching cars, but they were far enough away to enable him to proceed. He did not look to the left or north at any time.

Behind the standing bus two or three more cars had stopped, but plaintiff did not testify that he noticed them. He knew John R. street was a busy thoroughfare and that cars sometimes travel on the left side of the street to pass others. Locke saw plaintiff through the front windows of the standing bus just as he stepped out, swung to the left, attempted to stop, but said he could not avoid the accident. He also testified, and it is not denied, that plaintiff could have seen his bus before he stepped out in the open.

The place of the accident was not a street or highway intersection, and, therefore, was not governed by laws or ordinances prohibiting a vehicle from passing another going in the same direction at such intersections. Filter v. Mohr, 275 Mich. 230, 266 N.W. 341 (Apr. 6, 1936).

The legal duty of pedestrians, about to cross streets, to look carefully for approaching traffic has been stated many times by this court. Plaintiff's contention is that he had no duty to watch for traffic on the wrong side of the street. Siegel v. Detroit Cab Co., 246 Mich. 620, 225 N.W. 601. That case is readily distinguishable. It expressly confined the ruling to the circumstances of the case. There, the plaintiff had crossed...