Burpee v. Lane, 34.

• Citation: 274 Mich. 625,265 N.W. 484
• Decision Date: 02 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 34.,34.
• Parties: BURPEE v. LANE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

274 Mich. 625

265 N.W. 484

BURPEE

v.LANE.

No. 34.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 2, 1936.

Action by Harold Burpee against Charles Lane, wherein defendant filed a cross-declaration. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kalamazoo County; George V. weimer, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Jackson, Fitzgerald & Dalm, of Kalamazoo, for appellant.

Clair S. Beebe, of Kalamazoo, for appellee.

TOY, Justice.

At about 8:20 p. m. on October 9, 1934, the defendant, while driving his Oakland automobile easterly on Gull road, within the city limits of Kalamazoo, approached the entrance driveway of the Borgess Hospital and started to turn north across Gull road for the purpose of entering the driveway, when the plaintiff, driving a milk truck westerly on Gull road, collided with defendant's car, by reason of which each party suffered damages.

Plaintiff filed his declaration alleging the negligence of defendant as the proximate cause of the accident, and defendant filed his cross-declaration claiming that plaintiff's negligence was the proximate cause thereof. Issue was joined on the respective claims of the parties, trial was had, and the questions of fact raised submitted to a jury, who found damages for the plaintiff in the amount of $650. Judgment was entered in that amount, and defendant appeals therefrom.

In defendant's brief, he submits for our determination only the following question: ‘Was the charge of the court erroneous as argumentative, prejudicial, and as withdrawing inferential questions of fact from the consideration of the jury?’

Defendant sets forth in his ‘Reasons for Appeal’ ten portions of the charge of the trial judge, which he claims were argumentative, prejudicial, and which he claims withdrew inferential questions of fact from the jury.

While a reading of certain of the portions of the charge complained of, when removed from their context might, at first blush, give an impression that defendant's complaint was merited, yet upon a careful study of the charge as a whole, read in the light of the record, we cannot find that any of the portions complained of are prejudicial or argumentative, or that the trial court, by such charge, withdrew inferential questions of fact from the consideration of the jury. On the contrary, it appears that the trial judge, in a lengthy charge, outlined the issues to be determined, fairly, and in a careful manner, so that the jury might regard...