Dedo v. Skinner, 10.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 10.,10. |
| Parties | DEDO v. SKINNER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Elizabeth Dedo, by Mary Dedo Borek, her next friend, against Christine L. Skinner, for injuries sustained when struck by defendant's automobile. Verdict for the plaintiff and the trial court ordered plaintiff to file a remittitur and from a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Judgment as reduced by plaintiff's remittitur affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gobebic County; Thomas J. Landers, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Ivan D. Wright, of Ironwood, for appellant.
S. W. Patek and L. J. McManman, both of Ironwood, for appellee.
On trial by jury Elizabeth Dedo, a minor, in a suit brought by her next friend, had verdict and judgment for injuries sustained as the result of being struck by a Buick sedan owned and driven by defendant, Christine L. Skinner. Defendant has appealed.
We refer herein to the minor as plaintiff. The accident occurred shortly before noon of a pleasant day, August 15, 1938, when plaintiff was attempting to go in an easterly direction across the 39-foot pavement of Lowell Street in Ironwood, Michigan. She was seriously injured when struck by defendant's automobile going in a southerly direction on its right-hand side of the street. The location is in the city's business section. Plaintiff, who was then a week under seven years of age, had left the sidewalk on the westerly side of the street somewhere near the center of the block, not at a crosswalk. As she reached a point somewhat easterly of the line of cars parked on the west side of the street the accident happened.
Defendant claims plaintiff ran out from between two parked cars and into the front portion or in front of defendant's car which defendant asserts was going at 15 miles per hour or less. Defendant contends plaintiff's own fault caused the accident, and that defendant herself was free from negligent conduct. On the other hand, plaintiff says she came out of an alley which extends west from Lowell street, and when on the sidewalk she looked for autos coming either from the north or from the south, and did not see any. She charges defendant was negligent in that she was driving her automobile at a dangerous, unreasonable and unlawful rate of speed, that she failed to keep the automobile under control, failed to maintain a proper lookout, and failed to give warning of the approach of the auto.
The primary controversy on this appeal is presented by appellant's contention that as a matter of law the trial court should have held defendant was free from actionable negligence, and also that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence These questions were raised by appropriate motions in the trial court. In reviewing these issues we must construe the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
A careful review of this record brings the conclusion it cannot be said as a matter of law that defendant was free from negligence. There was testimony for the jury to the effect that defendant was driving her car in this business section of Ironwood at the rate of 30 miles an hour. This was in violation of statutory provisions and was negligence per se. And further, at the time and place of the accident in the comparatively narrow business street cars were parked all along the curb to defendant's right. Also under defendant's own testimony she did not see plaintiff at all until after the accident. If consideration is to be given to the testimony of plaintiff and one of her witnesses, as must be done that she approached the street at the opening of the alley, facts appear which necessitate submitting to the jury the question whether the defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout.
Likewise our review of the record brings the conclusion that the testimony presented an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Both she and the little girl who was accompanying her testified that before going upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johannes v. Rooks
...case.' See also: Zylstra v. Graham, 244 Mich. 319, 221 N.W. 318;Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372, 238 N.W. 177;Dedo v. Skinner, 296 Mich. 299, 302, 303, 296 N.W. 265. Defendant complains of the charge as to the rule of contributory negligence. The court in his charge to the jury properly......
-
Vaas v. Schrotenboer
...of fact for a jury. Bade v. Nies, 239 Mich. 37, 214 N.W. 170; Thomas v. Currier Lumber Co., 283 Mich. 134, 277 N.W. 857; Dedo v. Skinner, 296 Mich. 299, 296 N.W. 265; Longfellow v. City of Detroit, 302 Mich. 542, 5 N.W.2d 457. See, also, Strong v. Kittenger, 300 Mich. 126, 1 N.W.2d Appellan......
-
Dempsey v. Miles
...See, also, Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co., 257 Mich. 77, 241 N.W. 244; Holmes v. Merson, 285 Mich. 136, 280 N.W. 139; Dedo v. Skinner, 296 Mich. 299, 296 N.W. 265. Had defendant in the instant case been keeping a reasonable outlook he could scarcely have failed to observe the presence of youn......
-
Chadwick v. Kempf, 48.
...reasonably be expected from one under the same conditions, of the same age, sex, intelligence, and judgment.’ See, also, Dedo v. Skinner, 296 Mich. 299, 296 N.W. 265. Had Mary crossed the street without making any observations whatever, she probably would have been guilty of negligence. How......