Cardinal v. Reinecke

• Decision Date: 21 May 1937
• Docket Number: No. 119.,119.
• Citation: Cardinal v. Reinecke, 280 Mich. 15, 273 N.W. 330 (Mich. 1937)
• Parties: CARDINAL v. REINECKE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

280 Mich. 15

273 N.W. 330

CARDINAL

v.REINECKE.

No. 119.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 21, 1937.

Suit by Alice M. Cardinal against Florence B. Reinecke.From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Fred W. George, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Carl A. Williams, of Detroit, and Don Carrigan, of Port Huron, for appellant.

Stewart & Black, of Port Huron (Dean W. Kelley, of Lansing, of counsel), for appellee.

WIEST, Justice.

Barbara Reinecke of Port Huron, twenty-two year old daughter of defendant and a graduate of plaintiff's training school of beauty culture, having been informed by plaintiff of a possible opening at Harbor Beach, wanted to go there to make investigation.Her mother did not want her to go for such purpose unless accompanied by plaintiff and so informed plaintiff.Thereupon Barbara arranged with plaintiff to go, and Barbara, her mother, and her sister Jean, as driver of the mother's automobile, and accompanied by plaintiff, an afternoon in May, started on the trip.On the way Jean, the driver, saw a detour sign ahead and some distance beyond it a barrier across half of the roadbed, and, while considering whether to go ahead over the part of the road left open, she approached so near to the indicated detour that when she decided to make the turn, as thereon directed, the automobile went into a ditch at the side of the detour road, overturned, and plaintiff received injuries and brought this suit against the mother, who was owner of the automobile, to recover damages.

At the close of plaintiff's proofs, defendant moved for a directed verdict in her favor.This was denied and, upon motion of plaintiff and over objection thereto, and claim of right by defendant to have the jury pass upon the issue of actionable negligence, the court instructed the jury that defendant was guilty of negligence as a matter of law and left to the jury only the assessment of damages.The jury awarded plaintiff damages.

Defendant's subsequent motion for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, was granted on the ground that plaintiff was a guest passenger and could not recover without alleging and showing gross negligence or wanton and willful misconduct on the part of the driver of the automobile.From such judgment plaintiff appeals.Defendant offered no evidence.

Defendant, under the provision of Court Rule 66, § 8, presents assignments of error, upon which she...