Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co.
Decision Date | 18 May 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 69.,69. |
Citation | 301 Mich. 638,4 N.W.2d 39 |
Parties | GIBBONS v. DELTA CONTRACTING CO. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Mike Gibbons against Delta Contracting Company for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Gogebic County; Thomas J. Landers, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Edward W. Massie, of Ironwood, for appellant.
Wm. G. Cloon, of Ironwood, for appellee.
This case involves plaintiff's claim for damages resulting from an automobile collision which occurred sometime between 12:30 and 1:15 on the afternoon of August 22, 1940, on highway US-2 about one mile west of the village of Watersmeet, Gogebic county.
At the place of collision US-2 was a 20-foot cement paved highway extending east and west in a practically straight line. The view was clear for about 1,000 feet to the east and 500 to 600 feet to the west. Both drivers were familiar with the road at the point of the accident. The weather was clear. It had rained earlier in the day, and there was testimony that the pavement was ‘wet’ or ‘slightly damp.’
Plaintiff, a cement finisher, was alone in his 1930 Chevrolet sedan and was driving west on US-2. An employee was driving defendant's truck east on US-2. The truck had an empty dump box attached. Both vehicles were proceeding on their own respective sides of the highway until within 50 or 60 feet of the place of collision, which occurred on US-2 at or near the point where a private road, known as the Pat Kelly road, coming from the south, ran into but did not cross US-2. The only eyewitnesses to the accident were plaintiff, defendant's driver, and another employee of defendant (not working that day) who was riding with defendant's driver.
Plaintiff sustained severe injuries and was removed to the hospital in an unconscious condition. He was confined in hospitals for about six months and underwent three operations including a bone grafting. At the time of the trial, about nine months after the accident, he had not recovered the use of his right arm; and medical testimony indicated that the injuries to his right arm were permanent.
On September 18, 1940, plaintiff began suit alleging that he was driving west on the right (north) side of US-2; that, when defendant's truck, approaching from the west on the south side of the road, was about 60 feet from plaintiff's car, the truck turned sharply to the left (north) across the highway and collided with plaintiff's car on the north side of the highway. Defendant's answer denied negligence on its part and alleged that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. It further alleged that its driver was proceeding east on the south side of the highway, that plaintiff turned his car to the left (south) directly into the path of defendant's truck, and that the accident occurred on the south side of the highway.
The case was tried before a jury. Motion for directed verdict made at the conclusion of plaintiff's proofs and renewed at the conclusion of all proofs was denied. The jury returned a verdict of $13,000 for plaintiff. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied.
Defendant appeals contending that its driver was not negligent; that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; that the trial court erred in the admission of testimony and in his instructions to the jury; that the court erred in permitting plaintiff's counsel to make prejudicial remarks in his agrument to the jury; that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence; and that the verdict was grossly excessive.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant in connection with a road construction project about a mile from the place of the collision. He had not worked the morning of the day the accident occurred. About noon defendant had notified him to ‘hurry up to go to work, * * * to straighten up around forms and get ready to pour concrete.’ Plaintiff was driving his own car on his way to work for defendant when the accident happened. In regard to the collision, plaintiff testified, in part:
* * *
* * *
* * *
‘
Defendant's driver presents an entirely different version of the accident. He testified, in part:
‘Q. At that time what were you doing? A. I was driving east to town for another load of aggregate. * * *
‘Q. And did you see a car coming from the opposite direction? A. I did.
‘Q. How far away were you from that other car when you first saw it, Mr. Foster? A. I would say I seen that car over 1,000 feet.
‘Q. Which side of the road was that car on when you first saw it? A. The other car was on the north side of the road. * * *
‘Q. As you approached the intersection, tell the jury what occurred? * * * A. He (plaintiff) attempted to turn into this Kelly driveway * * *
‘The Court: Q. Tell what he did?
‘The Witness: A. He turned into this driveway and came down the highway on the south side of the road and then--
‘Mr. Massie: Q. On your side of the road? A. On my side of the road and then started to swing for the north line.
‘Q. And where did this collision take place, Mr. Foster? A. It was approximately, from 30 to 40 feet west of the Kelly driveway.
‘Q. On which side of the road, the north side or the south side? A. On the south side. * * * ‘Q. You say he turned into-appeared to turn into the Kelly driveway-at that time how far were you from him when he started to make that turn to the south side of the road? A. I should judge it would be 50 or 60 feet. * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
‘
The testimony was in conflict as to the location of defendant's truck after the accident. Some witnesses testified that the truck was entirely on the north side of the pavement, while others stated that the truck was headed in a northeasterly direction with the front part over the center line on the north side and the back part south of the center line. Some witnesses testified that there was oil from the truck on the north side, but not on the south side, of the pavement; also, that there were scratches on the north side of the pavement, apparently caused by the front portion of the truck sliding on the pavement after the wheels were knocked off. Other witnesses did not see the oil or the scratches on the north side of the pavement. Several witnesses testified that there was broken glass from plaintiff's car on the south side of the pavement. The dump box on the truck was knocked off and came to rest on the south side of the pavement. A witness testified that he picked up plaintiff's glasses in a case ‘on the south edge of the pavement.’
Plaintiff had held a driver's license for about seven years, but it had expired and at the time of the accident he had a driver's permit, issued by the sheriff's office,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp.
...upon the ground that the amount is excessive. McKay v. Hargis, 351 Mich. 409, 419, 88 N.W.2d 456 (1958); Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638, 653, 4 N.W.2d 39 (1942). In evaluating a jury verdict for possible remittitur, a court should review the verdict in the light most favora......
-
Alley v. Klotz
...negligence and contributory negligence to the jury. Tuttle v. Detroit, J. & C. R. Co., 193 Mich. 390, 159 N.W. 498;Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638,14 N.W.2d 39;McGrath v. Hargraves, 310 Mich. 510, 17 N.W.2d 733. There was substantial evidence to support the finding of the ju......
-
Trafamczak v. Anys
...that the jury was in any way improperly influenced in returning it. Cleven v. Giffin, 298 Mich. 139, 298 N.W. 482;Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638, 4 N.W.2d 39. For the reasons indicated, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.BUSHNELL, C. J., and SHARPE, BOYLES, R......
-
Samuelson v. Olson Transp. Co.
...Watrous v. Conor, supra; Michaels v. Smith, 240 Mich. 671, 216 N.W. 413.’ This language was cited with approval in Gibbons v. Delta Contracting Co., 301 Mich. 638, 4 N.W.2d 39, and in Alley v. Klotz, 320 Mich. 521, 31 N.W.2d 816. See, also, Retan v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co......