Burton v. Yellow & Checker Cab & Transfer Co.
| fullCitation | Burton v. Yellow & Checker Cab & Transfer Co., 283 Mich. 384, 278 N.W. 106 (Mich. 1938) |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1938 |
| Citation | 283 Mich. 384,278 N.W. 106 |
| Docket Number | No. 137.,137. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | BURTON v. YELLOW & CHECKER CAB & TRANSFER CO. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action for personal injuries sustained when struck by a taxicab by Charles C. Burton against Yellow & Checker Cab & Transfer Company, a Michigan corporation, and Cyril Laport. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Genesee County; Edward B. Black, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Millard & Roberts, of Flint, for appellants.
McGregor & Hospers, of Flint (Richard C. Fruit, of Flint, of counsel), for appellee.
At twilight on May 17, 1935, plaintiff was injured while attempting to walk from the west to the east side of Saginaw street in the city of Flint, the place of accident being a business district in said city. Saginaw street is a main-traveled thoroughfare, being 60 feet in width. It bears double street car tracks, the most westerly rail being approximately 20 feet east of the west curb line.
Plaintiff had stopped at a hardware store located on the west side of the street some 75 feet north of the north line of 12th street. He claims that as he came out of the store he crossed the sidewalk to the curb; that as he approached the curb he looked to the north for vehicles coming from that direction; that as he looked he saw defendants' taxi cab proceeding south; that at that time the cab was in the next block north approximately 250 to 300 feet away; that after observing the cab he stepped from the curb at a point near a car which was parked on that side of the street; that he again made observation when he reached the east side of the parked automobile and noted that the cab had then reached a point just south of the south line of Wellington street about 180 feet away; that the cab did not appear to be traveling very fast and that he believed that he had time to cross the street; that he continued on his way and for the third time looked to the north as he reached the most westerly rail of the street car tracks; that as he looked he saw the cab but 30 feet away approaching at a rapid speed; and that he became confused and started to run but was struck by the cab resulting in his injuries.
As opposed to plaintiff's testimony, the defendant Cyril LaPort, driver of the cab, testified that he was driving south on Saginaw street at a speed of 20 miles per hour and that plaintiff stepped suddenly in front of his car from between two automobiles parked on the west side of the street; that he was then only 6 or 8 feet from plaintiff; that he turned his cab to the left, applied the brakes, but was unable to avoid the accident.
At the close of plaintiff's proof and again at the close of all the proof, defendants moved for a directed verdict, decision thereon being reserved by the court under the Empson Act, 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 14531 et seq. Upon verdict for plaintiff, defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was denied. Defendants appeal.
It is first claimed that there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of defendants. Although defendant LaPort testified that he was driving the cab at a speed of 20 miles per hour, there was other testimony placing the speed at 40 miles per hour in violation of the statute and the ordinances of the city of Flint. We believe the question of defendants' negligence was properly submitted to the jury.
The more important question pertains to the alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff. In considering this question, we must adopt that view of the testimony most favorable to plaintiff. Defendants argue that plaintiff's actions between the time he first observed the cab and the moment he was injured constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Plaintiff had a right to cross Saginaw street between intersections. His right to the use of the street as a pedestrian was reciprocal with the rights of defendants in that regard. In attempting to cross, it was his duty to exercise reasonable care in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holmes v. Merson
...a question of fact for the jury. Lawrence v. Bartling & Dull Co., 255 Mich. 580, 238 N.W. 180; 5 Am.Jur. p. 608;Burton v. Cab & Transfer Co., 283 Mich. 384, 278 N.W. 106. These questions of fact were resolved by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. We find no reversible error in the trial. J......
-
Sexton v. Niewoonder
...for a distance of about 50 feet slowing down 10 miles an hour and, therefore, considered it safe to proceed. See Burton v. Cab & Transfer Co., 283 Mich. 384, 278 N.W. 106. Plaintiff also had the right to place some reliance upon the fact that she was about to enter the intersection from the......
-
Gayden v. Arabais
...of recovery. Arnell v. Gordon, 234 Mich. 140, 207 N.W. 825;Walker v. McGraw, 279 Mich. 97, 271 N.W. 570;Burton v. Yellow & Checker Cab & Transfer Co., 283 Mich. 384, 278 N.W. 106. Defendant contends that as a matter of law plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because she abandone......
-
Wilson v. City of Detroit
...However, there is still a question of what a prudent person would have done under similar circumstances. Burton v. Yellow & Checker Cab & Transfer Co., 283 Mich. 384, 278 N.W. 106;Smarinsky v. Markowitz, 265 Mich. 412, 251 N.W. 539;Benjamin v. McGraw, 208 Mich. 75, 175 N.W. 394. Moreover, c......