Frary v. Grand Rapids Taxicab Co.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 40.,40. |
| Citation | 198 N.W. 897,227 Mich. 445 |
| Parties | FRARY v. GRAND RAPIDS TAXICAB CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Willis B. Perkins, Judge.
Action by Rufus F. Frary, against the Grand Rapids Taxicab Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Irving H. Smith, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
J. T. & T. E. McAllister, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Plaintiff, a man of 50 years, was employed at the Boston Store in Grand Rapids. On the morning of January 9, 1922, he came to his work as usual on a Monroe avenue street car. At a regular stop, nearly in front of the Boston Store, he alighted on the east side of the car, passed around the rear of the car, and looked to see if any traffic was liable to interfere with his crossing to the west curb. He could see only a short distance because of another car which stood on the west track. He proceeded to the west rail of the west track and looked again, but saw nothing by reason of the car and the curve in the track. He was then 17 feet from the west curb. He started across, and before he had gone half that distance he was struck by a taxicab going at least 25 miles an hour. He was knocked down by the impact and quite seriously injured.
At the conclusion of the testimony the trial court, upon motion, directed a verdict for defendant, on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law. The sole question raised by plaintiff on this record is whether the trial court was justified in so doing.
[1] When plaintiff alighted, passed around the rear of the car, and looked to the north before crossing the west track, he was, without doubt, exercising reasonable care. When he crossed the west track and looked north again he appears to have been as cautious as the average man. When he saw nothing and proceeded to go across the 17-foot strip to the west curb, he appears to have done what the average prudent man would have done. If he saw no vehicle approaching he would certainly be in the exercise of ordinary care in attempting to cross the 17-foot strip. The question then arises whether he could and ought, in the exercise of common prudence, to have seen defendant's taxicab approaching. In determining this question the surrounding conditions are to be considered. Just to the north of the car upon which he arrived stood another car on the west track. This car interferred with his view to the north. This view was made more difficult by the curve in the street. In view of these conditions it is quite evident that an approaching vehicle could get within a short distance of him before it would be observable. As plaintiff stood at the west rail with no vehicle in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v. Derose, 36.
...Mrs. Carey is to be declared guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law the proofs must be made plain, Frary v. Grand Rapids Taxicab Co., 227 Mich. 445, 198 N.W. 897; that a state of facts will not be deemed negligence as a matter of law if reasonable minds differ upon it, Adams v......
-
Davis v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...driver was negligent before he should be declared to be guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Frary v. Grand Rapids Taxicab Co., 227 Mich. 445, 198 N.W. 897.' In Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad Co. v. Van Steinburg, cited by the Court in the language above quoted, Chief Justice......
-
Thurkow v. City of Detroit
...right to recover. Arnell v. Gordon, 234 Mich. 140, 207 N.W. 825;Moore v. Noorthoek, 280 Mich. 431, 273 N.W. 758;Frary v. Grand Rapids Taxicab Co., 227 Mich. 445, 198 N.W. 897;Wallace v. Rosenfeld, 285 Mich. 204, 280 N.W. 733;Reedy v. Goodin, 285 Mich. 614, 281 N.W. 377. ‘In cases of this ch......
-
Torma v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...and clearly establishes such contributory negligence that no reasonable man could come to any other conclusion. Frary v. Grand Rapids Taxicab Co., 277 Mich. 445, 198 N.W. 897. If plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care under all of the circumstances, he was not guilty of contributory......