Buehler v. Beadia

• Decision Date: 01 April 1955
• Docket Number: No. 41,41
• Citation: 73 N.W.2d 304,343 Mich. 692
• Parties: Adah BUEHLER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edward S. BEADIA and Consolidated Freight Company, a corporation, Defendants and Appellants. ,
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 304

73 N.W.2d 304

343 Mich. 692

Adah BUEHLER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edward S. BEADIA and Consolidated Freight Company, a corporation, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 41, April Term, 1955.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 1, 1955.

Howard & Howard, Kalamazoo, for defendant and appellant, Edward S. beadia.

Frost, Ford & Kriekard, Kalamazoo, for defendant and appellant, Consolidated Freight Company.

Stratton, Wise, Sykes, Early & Starbuck, Kalamazoo, for plaintiff and appellee, Adah Buehler.

Before the Entire Bench.

REID, Justice.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between a car owned and operated by herself, and a Chevrolet tractor which was being driven by defendant Beadia without the semi-trailer attached thereto which it was designed to draw. Plaintiff claims that Consolidated Freight Company, defendant, was the owner of the truck. Ownership is denied by Consolidated Freight Company. Ownership is claimed by defendant Beadia. The case was tried by the court without a jury. From a judgment for plaintiff of $6,187.50 and costs, defendants appeal.

About 8:45 a. m., November 23, 1951, plaintiff was operating a 1941 Plymouth automobile owned by her in a northerly direction on Westnedge avenue and arrived at the intersection of Westnedge and Michigan avenues in the city of Kalamazoo, Michigan. Westnedge avenue is a trunk line highway running north and south (highway US 131) and Michigan avenue is also a trunk line highway running east and west (highway US 12). When plaintiff arrived at the intersection the traffic control signal light at the intersection was red for north and south traffic and she stopped her car at the crosswalk; there was no car ahead of her. Witness Alden P. Finney was also traveling north on Westnedge avenue back of plaintiff and stopped his car at the intersection on plaintiff's right, abreast of plaintiff's car. As plaintiff was waiting at the intersection, defendant Beadia was approaching from the west on US 12 (Michigan avenue) at a speed as testified by plaintiff's witness Schon, of at least 40 miles an hour. The posted speed is 25 miles an hour. Witness Schon testified that he (Schon) was driving ahead of the truck of defendant but swerved to his right and came to a complete stop at the intersection in question, and that the truck driven by Beadia passed him; that he, Schon, had been driving about 30 miles an hour and that when he pulled over to the south side of Michigan avenue, Beadia driving the truck, passed him at 40 miles an hour and that he, Schon, as he drove up to the intersection and angled over toward the curb, could see that the truck was not reducing its speed, and could see that although he (Schon) was stopping, the truck was not going to stop; that the plaintiff's car did not start up until after witness Schon's car had stopped; that there were only the cars of plaintiff and Finney at the intersection when he, Schon, stopped, the intersection being otherwise clear. We hereinafter quote the testimony of plaintiff and also of defendant Beadia as to the collision that occurred.

Plaintiff testified on direct examination,

'As I came up to the corner the light was red, I stopped beside a car that was standing next to the curb, and waited for the light on the northeast corner to turn green.'

She also testified on cross examination,

'I stopped at the south sidewalk line for Michigan Avenue.'

Further on cross examination, plaintiff testified:

'If I had applied my brakes, which were in good working order, and moved from the position in which I was waiting for the light, at any point between the time I passed the curb line of the south side of Michigan, I was going slow enough so I think I could have stopped in less than a car length.'

And further on cross examination,

'I don't recall whether I looked to the west and saw the truck coming. I drove out into the intersection because the green light was on on the northeast corner; I was watching my green traffic light. I didn't look and didn't see the defendant between the Kroger Store and the intersection I was about to enter. I can't recall whether I looked to the west to see if there was any truck coming before I started out, and I don't recall whether I saw any cars standing there on the west side of the southwest corner of Michigan at the time I started out.' (Italics supplied.)

The Kroger store is shown by other testimony to be 450 feet west of the center of the easterly half of Westnedge avenue.

Plaintiff further testified that as she started up there were no cars coming south on Westnedge and,

'Q. No cars still traveling east or still traveling west? A. Not that I know of.' (Italics supplied.)

It appears from the testimony of witness Schon that as Beadia came close to the intersection, he (Beadia) applied his brakes and left tire marks maybe 20 feet on the pavement beginning at the crosswalk line, and turned left--if he had gone straight he wouldn't have hit plaintiff. Plaintiff testified,

'When it [the light on the northeast corner] turned green I started across, looked to the east and there was no traffic--no cars stopped there. As I went across I looked at my light; then I turned and looked to the west and here was this tractor and it was so close to me that it obstructed my view, and it swerved. Just as I looked and saw it, it swerved and polwed right into my door where I was sitting on the driver's side, and I heard it grind, saw the glass shatter. I hollered and started sliding right across the seat, the seat broke loose and went out from under me, and I went down on the floor over on the east side of the car, the doors opened and I went through the door, my feet were still in the car and I was across the running board. I landed on my shoulder--my head was on the ground.'

Defendant Beadia testified,

'Q. How far out into the intersection was she when you discovered her? A. I would say about a car length.

'Q. Was she moving into your line of travel? A. She was.

'Q. And your car was where at that time? A. A short distance from the corner there.

'Q. Were you on the crosswalk of Michigan avenue--over the crosswalk of Michigan at the time? A. I was.

'Q. At the time you saw her drive out into Michigan? A. That is true.

'I was on or over the crosswalk of Michigan avenue when I first saw her. I put on my brakes and skidded to the left in an effort to avoid the collision, but the front end of my tractor struck the left side of her car. The impact occurred to the south of center of intersection. I don't believe her car had reached the center of Michigan avenue when the impact occurred, my vehicle then moved a little to the side.'

The trial court correctly found defendant Beadia guilty of negligence.

Regardless of the weight given defendant's testimony, from undisputed testimony in the case it appears that if plaintiff had looked to the west as she was in her car at the south side of the intersection, she would have seen the approaching truck driven by defendant Beadia and if she had given the truck even momentary attention, she could have seen that it was not slowing down. She did not look; she paid no attention whatever to any traffic coming from the west, and hence formed no judgment respecting it. The truck was proceeding in the northerly lane of eastbound traffic on Michigan. By the time plaintiff reached the southerly side line of the pavement on Michigan avenue after leaving the sidewalk line, she should have noticed that the continuing speed of the truck would jeopardize her progress. Before she reached the southerly side line of the eastbound traffic lane in which the truck was traveling, she should have known that the danger of collision was imminent. She was not entitled to the extent of total inattention on her part, to rely on other drivers obeying with mechanical precision all the rules governing their conduct. Many a driver negligently has driven through an intersection after the green light had on his near approach ceased to give him permission to continue.

In Morse v. Bishop, 329 Mich. 488, at pages 490-493, 45 N.W.2d 367, at page 368, we say:

'Plaintiff cites Travis v. Eisenlord, 256 Mich. 264, 239 N.W. 304, as authority for his contention and theory that he had a right to rely on the green light in his favor and upon the assumption that defendant would heed the red light against him, obey the law and stop, obviating any necessity on plaintiff's part for looking to see whether his assumption was well founded. * * * Whatever the construction to be placed upon the Travis case, it is plain that in a subsequent case, Boyd v. Maruski, 321 Mich. 71, 32 N.W.2d 53, 54, the majority of this court rejected the above contention of the plaintiff and held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law a plaintiff who crossed a street under protection of a green traffic light, but who, after seeing defendant's vehicle standing across the street to her right as if waiting for the red light against it, failed to make further observation of it while she continued across the street. * * *

'Plaintiff's theory is equally exploded by the reasoning in our opinion in Long v. Garneau, 319 Mich. 291, 29 N.W.2d 696, 701, and its analysis of the cases cited therein, although in that case plaintiff's contributory negligence, as found by the court, was not necessarily determined as a matter of law. In that case we said [319 Mich. at page 309, 29 N.W.2d 696] * * *.

"'Before crossing a street, a pedestrian must (1) make proper observation as to approaching traffic, (2) observe approaching traffic and form a judgment as to its distance away and its speed, (3) continue his observations while crossing the street, and (4) exercise that degree of care and caution which an ordinarily careful and prudent person would exercise under like circumstances.' Malone v. Vining (syllabus), 313 Mich. 315, 21 N.W.2d 144."

Plaintiff in this case, while...