Carlson v. Brunette, 65

• Decision Date: 05 April 1954
• Docket Number: No. 65,65
• Citation: 339 Mich. 188,63 N.W.2d 428
• Parties: CARLSON v. BRUNETTE et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 428

63 N.W.2d 428

339 Mich. 188

CARLSON v. BRUNETTE et al.

No. 65.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 5, 1954.

Herbert, Wood & Hood, Manistique, for appellant.

McGinn & Fitzharris, Escanaba, for appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

BOYLES, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered for the defendants by the trial court in an automobile accident case, on motions made by the defendants for a directed verdict, on which decision had been reserved by the court, and for judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict for the plaintiff. In a comprehensive opinion thoroughly reviewing the testimony, the trial court granted defendants' motions and entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals, and for reversal raises two questions.

1. The first is stated by plaintiff as follows:

'Viewing the testimony concerning the physical facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, is plaintiff's version of the accident rendered impossible to that the verdict of the jury in her favor must be set aside?'

More properly stated, the question before the court is whether, viewing the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the testimony clearly preponderates in the opposite direction and in favor of the defendants.

The accident, a head-on collision, occurred on highway US-2 in Delta county at about 5:45 p. m., December 22, 1949. It was nearly dark and the headlights of both cars were on. Plaintiff, alone in her car, testified that her car was hit by the defendants' car, when her car was partly off the pavement, on her side of the road. The defendant Brunette, who was driving the defendants' car, and two others who were riding with him, testified that the plaintiff's car ran into the defendants' car while it was on its own side of the road. Several witnesses testified as to the position of the automobiles immediately after the collision, and as to the location of the debris on the pavement, and other conditions at that place, immediately after the accident.

The controversy revolves around the question whether the accident occurred on plaintiff's or on defendants' part of the highway. The answer to that question decides whether the defendant driver was guilty of negligence, and whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

The accident occurred as plaintiff was going north on highway US-2, and defendant Walter Brunette, in company with two other men, was driving a car belonging to defendant George Rivest south on said highway. There was no other traffic. At that point, US-2 is a two-lane concrete highway. For cars proceeding northerly, there was a wide curve to the left, and then the highway runs straight for a short distance. At the time of the accident, there was no ice or snow on the highway but there was snow on the sides. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident other than the occupants of the two cars involved. Plaintiff testified that as she was rounding the curve northward (to her left) at about 40 miles per hour she saw the defendants' car coming toward her; that as the defendants' car approached, she noticed it began to come to her side of the highway, and she began to drive off her side of the road to get away from him; that at the time of the impact, the right side of her car was off the pavement. Defendant Brunette testified that when he saw plaintiff's car coming around the curve, 'it was hugging the center line close, so I kept over as far as I could without getting off of the cement, and it came up on me. I would say 10 or 20 feet away. I could see the bright lights and it banged into me * * *.' He further testified that plaintiff's lights changed course, toward him; and that his entire car was on his own right-hand side of the road. Defendants' witness Clark, who was with defendant driver in the car, together with a third witness also in the car who had been picked up while asking for a ride, corroborated said defendant's testimony. One of them testified that Brunette 'was on his own side of the road.' The other testified that the defendant did not cross the center line at any time, and that plaintiff's car was over the center line, on the west side, that 'it came right toward Wallie's (Brunette's) car.'

There were conflicting conclusions drawn from the testimony of other witnesses for both parties as to the conditions at the scene after the accident. They agreed, however, that plaintiff's car came to rest several feet east of the pavement, pointing northeasterly, and that defendants' car came to rest mostly in the west lane.

The drivers of both cars were rendered unconscious. The court, in a comprehensive opinion, after discussing the testimony at length, came to the conclusion that the testimony as to the location of the automobiles, the debris and fluid, after the accident, was undisputed, and that it clearly preponderated in favor of the defendants.

A further resume of the testimony would unnecessarily encumber the opinion and be of no use to the profession. Our review of the physical facts, particularly the position of the debris, the fluid on the pavement, the condition and location of the cars after the accident, as well as their recollection of the accident by the witnesses, justified the conclusion of the trial court that the defendant driver was on his own (westerly) side of the pavement when the collision occurred. The undisputed evidence of physical...