Camp v. Spring
| Decision Date | 14 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 110.,110. |
| Citation | 241 Mich. 700,217 N.W. 917 |
| Parties | CAMP v. SPRING. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.
Action by Mary H. Camp against Berton A. Spring. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench. Dilley, Souter & Dilley, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Rolland J. Cleland, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Defendant, a funeral director, closed the door of a Lincoln sedan-the last car in a funeral procession ready to start for a cemetery-and caught fingers of plaintiff in the door jamb. The car was not one furnished by defendant, but he assisted plaintiff to enter. Because of others in the car plaintiff was still standing when defendant closed the door. A verdict having been directed against plaintiff, we omit reference to the defense.
Was the happening a mere accident or was it occisioned by defendant's negligence, and, if so, was plaintiff free from want of care? The circuit judge thought it a mere accident, but, if actionable, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
[2] While counsel for plaintiff does not claim that defendant, acting as funeral director and superintending the formation of the funeral procession and accommodation of persons, was a common carrier, they do insist he was a private carrier, and cite cases against carriers. A funeral director, superintending the formation of a procession of automobiles, furnished by others, and assisting persons to enter such vehicles, does not sustain the relation of a carrier, public or private, to the persons using the vehicles. Defendant, however, was bound to exercise reasonable care, but was not required to search for careless acts committed by plaintiff. Counsel for plaintiff call our attention to cases relative to common carriers and seek, by analogy, to establish the negligence of defendant.
While the books contain many cases holding common carriers liable for injuries to passengers occasioned by the acts of servants who should know that the passenger was in position where the closing of a door would cause injury, the rule is equally well settled that a common carrier is not liable where the servant had no reason to believe the passenger was in a position to be injured by the closing of a door. The closing of the door after plaintiff had entered the car was a usual and proper act, and defendant was not bound to anticipate so unusual an occurrence as plaintiff placing her fingers in the door jamb. Plaintiff was not confronted with a sudden emergency in which she might be excused from acting with care.
Many of the cases cited by counsel for plaintiff employ the doctrine res ipsa loquitur, and for that reason cannot be considered in this jurisdiction where that doctrine is not recognized. Even should we hold defendant a carrier he is not liable.
In Hines v. Boston Elev. Ry., 198 Mass. 346, 84 N. E. 475, a station platform guard in closing a car door from outside caught the fingers of a passenger in the door jamb. The court stated:
The court pointed out the nonapplicability of Carroll v. Boston & Northern Street Ry., 186 Mass. 97, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lavallee v. Pratt, 343
...Chevrolet Co., 186 Va. 669, 43 S.E.2d 870; and generally, Rosenfeld v. City of Detroit, 274 Mich. 650, 265 N.W. 490; Camp v. Spring, 241 Mich. 700, 217 N.W. 917; Curt v. Ziman, 140 Pa.Super. 25, 12 A.2d 802. One ought to see what one can see when there is a duty to see. It is only where a d......
-
Clark v. Shefferly
...defendants. The defendants appealed. 'The defendants cited the cases of McIntyre v. Kunsky Theatres Corporation, 256 Mich. 634 ; Camp v. Spring, 241 Mich. 700 ; Abent v. Michigan Cab Company, 279 Mich. 617 ; Kerr v. City of Detroit, 255 Mich. 446 , in support of their appeal. In each of tho......
-
A. J. Brown & Son, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids
...it has been definitely determined by this court that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not prevail in this state. Camp v. Spring, 241 Mich. 700, 217 N. W. 917. The mere occurrence of an accident ordinarily raises no presumption of negligence; the burden of proof remains with plaintiff ......
-
Kerr v. City of Detroit
...if acceleration of and checking speed could not be prompt, the efficiency of such cars would be seriously impaired.” In Camp v. Spring, 241 Mich. 700, 217 N. W. 917, 918, where plaintiff's fingers were caught in the door jamp by the closing of a door of a large sedan by a funeral director, ......