Dreyfus v. Daronco

• Decision Date: 23 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 175.,175.
• Citation: 253 Mich. 235,234 N.W. 587
• Parties: DREYFUS v. DARONCO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

253 Mich. 235

234 N.W. 587

DREYFUS

v.DARONCO.

No. 175.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 23, 1931.

Error to Circuit Court, Gogebic County; George O. Driscoll, Judge.

Action by Alphonse H. Dreyfus against John Daronco. To review a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Waples & Waples, of Ironwood (Stephens, Sletteland & Sutherland, of Madison, Wis., of counsel), for appellant.

Sol Blumrosen, of Detroit, and Jones & Patek, of Ironwood, for appellee.

McDONALD, J.

The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident on Silver street in the city of Ironwood, Mich., and has brought this suit to recover his damages. Silver street runs east and west through and between Hurley, Wis., and Ironwood, Mich. A single street car track runs along the center of the street dividing it into the north half, which is used by the west-bound traffic, and the south half, which is used by the east-bound traffic. A bridge over the Montreal river connects the two cities. In crossing the bridge, all vehicles keep to the north of the railway track. Because of this, automobiles coming from the west into Ironwood, after crossing the bridge, swing to the south across the railway track onto the south side of Silver street where east-bound traffic is required to travel. It is the plaintiff's claim that, on the day of the accident, the defendant, driving a truck, came from the west across the bridge into Ironwood, and, instead of crossing the railway track on to the south side of the street where there was a well-defined lane of travel for east-bound traffic, he continued east on the wrong side and ran into plaintiff as he was about to cross.

The defendant admits that he was on the north half of the street, which was the wrong side for traffic going in the direction in which he was driving, but he denies that his truck hit the plaintiff. It is his claim that, when he was about twenty-five feet from the plaintiff, he saw him come out from between two cars parked at the north curb of the street; that he immediately sounded his horn and applied his brakes; that, in attempting to avoid being hit, the plaintiff jumped to the left and fell down on the pavement; and that, if he suffered any injuries, they were caused by his own negligence in failing to look toward the west before attempting to cross the street.

The issues presented by these claims were submitted to the jury. The plaintiff received a verdict on which judgment was entered. The defendant has brought error.

The following questions require discussion:

1. Should the court have directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law?

The defendant rests his claim as to plaintiff's negligence on the fact that he stepped into the street from the north curb without looking to the west; that it was daylight; that there was nothing to obstruct his view of the approaching car; and that, if he had looked, he would have been able to avoid the injury. The plaintiff excuses his failure to...