Brown v. Lilli, 131.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 131.,131. |
| Citation | 274 N.W. 751,281 Mich. 170 |
| Parties | BROWN v. LILLI. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Alice Brown against Anthony Lilli. From a judgment denying defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and motion for new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed without new trial.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Van Buren County; Glenn E. Warner, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Clifford A. Mitts, Jr., of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
James R. Golden and John A. Wagner, both of Battle Creek, for appellee.
On August 15, 1935, plaintiff, together with friends, was returning by automobile from a resort near Reed City to her home in Chicago. They left Kalamazoo on Highway US 12, which runs in an easterly and westerly direction at the place of the accident in question, and when approximately a mile west from the city of Kalamazoo stopped the car on the gravel shoulder on the northerly side of the road to eat a lunch, the left wheels of the car being about 18 inches from the edge of the pavement. After eating the lunch, plaintiff stepped from the right rear door of the car and walked along the northerly side thereof to the front when she turned to her left and proceeded to cross the road to the Woodlawn Park Grocery on the south side of the road.
Plaintiff claims that before stepping upon the pavement she looked to her left and saw a car coming from the direction of Kalamazoo; that she permitted this car to pass before proceeding; that she then looked to her right and to her left, and seeing no vehicles approaching from the west, started across the pavement; that after taking a few steps she cast her eyes downward to see how far she was from the center of the road and then again looked to her left whereupon she saw defendant's car approaching from the east. She claims that when she first saw defendant's car it was 40 or 50 feet from her and was ‘zigzagging’ down the road and that she attempted to get out of its path but that the car continued to ‘zigzag’ and finally struck her inflicting severe injuries.
At the time of the impact defenant was traveling at a speed of 40 to 50 miles per hour. He testified he was 15 to 20 feet from plaintiff when he first saw her and that he did everything possible to avoid striking her after she was observed by him but he was unable to do so.
Easterly from the point of the accident the road runs down over a hill, and the testimony stands undisputed that by actual measurement an automobile coming over the top of the hill from the east is fully visible for a distance of 1215 feet from where plaintiff attempted to cross.
Motions for a directed verdict were taken for advisement under the Empson Act Comp.Laws 1929, § 14531 et seq. Defendant appeals from a denial of a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and a motion for a new trial.
Although some doubt may exist as to whether defendant was guilty of negligence upon the record, the question was submitted to the jury which found for the plaintiff on this issue. We do not pass upon the question but instead will proceed to discuss plaintiff's contributory negligence.
We quote from the testimony of plaintiff:
Plaintiff's witness, the driver of the car...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v. Derose, 36.
...of defendant's automobile, he was guilty of contributory negligence which would bar plaintiff's recovery.’ [page 733.] In Brown v. Lilli, 281 Mich. 170, 274 N.W. 751, Mr. Justice Chandler, in writing the opinion, said [page 752]: ‘The accident occurred in the day time, and the facts display......
-
Burton v. Yellow & Checker Cab & Transfer Co.
...See, also, Orth v. Gregg, 217 Iowa 516, 250 N.W. 113;La Roche v. Singsen, 281 Mass. 369, 183 N.E. 767. Defendants cite Brown v. Lilli, 281 Mich. 170, 274 N.W. 751. Cases of this type are distinguishable from the instant case in that the plaintiff in the former failed to see that which was p......
-
Herceg v. Wideman, 72.
...crossing.’ See, also, Zuidema v. Bekkering, 256 Mich. 327, 239 N.W. 333;Knight v. Merignac, 281 Mich. 684, 275 N.W. 732;Brown v. Lilli, 281 Mich. 170, 274 N.W. 751;Kok v. Lattin, 261 Mich. 362, 246 N.W. 149. In the case at bar, plaintiff traveled a distance of 50 feet before entering the no......
- Davis v. Belmont Creamery Co.