Gardinear v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 79.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 79.,79. |
| Citation | 251 N.W. 388,265 Mich. 286 |
| Parties | GARDINEAR v. PERE MARQUETTE RY. CO. (two cases). |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Vincent M. Brennan, Judge.
Actions by Olive Gardinear in her own right and as administratrix of the estate of Luther Gardinear, deceased, against the Pere Marquette Railway Company, a corporation. From judgment for defendant, notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Sol Blumrosen, of Detroit, for appellant.
John C. Shields and W. K. Williams, both of Detroit, for appellee.
Plaintiff was, on May 5, 1929, riding with her husband, Luther Gardinear, in an automobile along the South Lyon road going east. The automobile collided with the defendant's train. Her husband, Luther Gardinear, was killed, and plaintiff injured. She sued defendant for $150,000. Plaintiff was also appointed administratrix of her husband's estate, and, as such, sued defendant for damages arising out of the same transaction for $100,000. Plaintiff had verdict for $5,000 in her own right; she had verdict as administratrix of her husband's estate of $3,500. On motion, judgment was rendered for defendant, notwithstanding the verdict in both cases. Plaintiff appeals.
There are many assignments of error. It is unnecessary to discuss all of them. It seems to be settled by the statutes and decisions of this state that one driving an automobile in the nighttime must have the vehicle under such control that it may be stopped within the range of clear vision ahead; must have his vehicle equipped with proper lights to enable him to see clearly 200 feet ahead; must have the vehicle equipped with proper brakes kept in good working order to enable him to stop within the range of such lights; and, if by reason of inattention, want of diligence, failure to have proper lights or brakes, or of driving too fast, the person in charge of such automobile drives against the side of a moving freight train which could have been seen in time to have stopped and to have avoided the injury had the driver thereof been driving at the rate of speed he should have driven, and exercising proper diligence and attention, such person is guilty of contributory negligence which bars recovery.
In this case the decedent, Luther Gardinear, being guilty of contributory negligence under the undisputed facts, could not recover. The negligence of decedent is imputable to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ter Haar v. Steele, 72
...Transportation Co., 261 Mich. 440, 246 N.W. 174; Ruth v. Vroom, 245 Mich. 88, 222 N.W. 155, 62 A.L.R. 1528; Gardinear v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 265 Mich. 286, 251 N.W. 388; Lett v. Summerfield & Hecht, 239 Mich. 699, 214 N.W. 939; and there is no necessity for a lengthy discussion of the a......
-
Mallory v. Pitcairn
...Railroad Co., 301 Mich. 383, 3 N.W.2d 314;Lockett v. Grand Trunk W. Railroad Co., 272 Mich. 219, 261 N.W. 306;Gardinear v. Pere Marquette Railway Co., 265 Mich. 286, 251 N.W. 388;Heintzelman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 260 Mich. 688, 245 N.W. 548. The trial court saw and heard the witness......
-
Hart v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co.
...N.W. 878;Angstman v. Wilson, 258 Mich. 195, 241 N.W. 909;DePotty v. City of Detroit, 258 Mich. 657, 242 N.W. 799;Gardinear v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 265 Mich. 286, 251 N.W. 388. The judgment for defendant is affirmed in each case, with costs. WIEST and SHARPE, JJ., concurred with BUSHNELL, ......
-
Graziano v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...which are plainly there to be seen are: Richman v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 254 Mich. 607, 236 N.W. 878; Gardinear v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 265 Mich. 286, 251 N.W. 388; DePotty v. City of Detroit, 258 Mich. 657, 242 N.W. 799; Downey v. Pere Marquette Railway Co., 230 Mich. 243, 202 N.W.......