DeCcopman v. Hammond
| Decision Date | 21 May 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 31.,31. |
| Parties | DeCCOPMAN v. HAMMOND. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Fred DeCoopman against E. P. Hammond. Judgment for defendant, notwithstanding verdict for plaintiff, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Guy A. Miller, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Vandeveer & Vandeveer, of Detroit, for appellant.
Ernest P. LaJoie, of Detroit, for appellee.
Woodward avenue, at Twelve Mile road in Oakland county, has a 39-foot parkway in the center, with 40-foot lanes for traffic on each side. June 17, 1934, at about the hour of 2:30 in the morning, plaintiff drove his automobile south over the west traffic lane of Woodward avenue, intending to turn east on Twelve Mile road. He stopped at the intersection, turned east past the center parkway, stopped again, and, before crossing the lane of northbound traffic on Woodward avenue, looked to the south and saw the lights of defendant's approaching car, estimated that it was from 600 to 900 feet away, and, thinking he had time to cross ahead of it, started his car without looking again until just over the center of the traffic lane and then defendant's car was right upon him, struck his car, and he was injured.
Upon trial by jury plaintiff had verdict, but the court entered judgment for defendant, finding plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Upon review plaintiff contends that the court was in error in so finding and in not entering judgment on the verdict.
According the most favorable view to the evidence in behalf of plaintiff, he was guilty of negligence in the eye of the law. Plaintiff saw the lights of the approaching automobile; it was nighttime; he could but guess at its location, could tell nothing about its speed, and he drove slowly in its pathway without paying any further attention to its approach until just as it struck his car. The ordinarily prudent man needs no prodding to awaken to the fact that such failure to watch a known approaching danger in the nighttime, with ability, had he done so, to have avoided the collision, was want of reasonable care.
If defendant was exceeding the speed limit, as claimed by plaintiff, such fact cannot be held an excuse of plaintiff's want of reasonable care.
Defendant was on a through street and plaintiff on a stop street, with defendant's car approaching from his right. Under the undisputed facts, this case is ruled by our holdings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weller v. Mancha
...Smith v. Ormiston, 242 Mich. 600, 219 N.W. 618. 'This case is similar to Boerema v. Cook, 256 Mich. 266, 239 N.W. 314; DeCoopman v. Hammond, 279 Mich. 619, 273 N.W. 290; Wehling v. Linder, 248 Mich. 241, 226 N.W. 880; Kok v. Lattin, 261 Mich. 362, 246 N.W. 149. And the holdings in this stat......
-
Francis v. Rumsey
...285 Mich. 593, 281 N.W. 336;Wells v. Oliver, 283 Mich. 168, 277 N.W. 872;Butler v. Jones, 282 Mich. 346, 276 N.W. 474;DeCoopman v. Hammond, 279 Mich. 619, 273 N.W. 290;Donnelly v. Chulski, 275 Mich. 22, 265 N.W. 513;Kok v. Lattin, 261 Mich. 362, 246 N.W. 149;McKelvey v. Hill, 259 Mich. 16, ......
-
Carey v. Derose, 36.
...16, 242 N.W. 822; Brodie v. City of Detroit, 275 Mich. 626,267 N.W. 579;Young v. Martinich, 279 Mich. 267, 271 N.W. 753;DeCoopman v. Hammond, 279 Mich. 619, 273 N.W. 290;Wells v. Oliver, 283 Mich. 168, 277 N.W. 872;Slingerland v. Snell, 283 Mich. 524, 278 N.W. 672. Had Mrs. Carey looked whi......
-
Finfera v. Thomas, 8537.
...have had an unobstructed view of the rapidly approaching airplane in time to have avoided the collision. See, also, DeCoopman v. Hammond, 279 Mich. 619, 273 N.W. 290. An automobile driver is bound, in law, to look and to see what he should have seen if the object was plainly visible. Cramer......