Gifford v. Dice
| Decision Date | 10 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 57.,57. |
| Citation | 257 N.W. 830,269 Mich. 293 |
| Parties | GIFFORD v. DICE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Dorothea Gifford against James Dice. From a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; Willis B. Perkins, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Charles F. Hext, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Mason, Alexander, McCaslin, & Cholette, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Plaintiff was a guest riding with defendant in his automobile when the left front tire blew out, causing defendant to lose control of the car and resulting in a collision with an approaching truck and injuries to plaintiff. Plaintiff brought the suit at bar under the so-called guest act, Comp. Laws 1929, § 4648, to recover damages, alleging that defendant was guilty of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct in driving the car with knowledge of the worn and weakened condition of the tire. The court directed a verdict of not guilty upon the opening statement of counsel for plaintiff. Plaintiff reviews by appeal.
We accept the statement that the tire was worn through the tread and a large part of the fabric lining and defendant was aware of the fact. With such condition of the tire, was it willful and wanton misconduct toward plaintiff, as his guest, to drive the car for a considerable distance on a concrete pavement? Defendant, if guilty of ordinary negligence only, cannot be held liable under the guest act.
A guest in an automobile accepts the means of conveyance in the condition it is maintained by the owner, and cannot predicate an action for gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct upon failure of the owner to inspect the car and keep it in such repair as to avoid the possibility of an accident. So, in this case, defendant owed no duty to plaintiff as his guest to keep the car tire in such a condition of repair as to prevent a blow-out or to replace the worn tire by another. The owner of a car, under circumstances such as in the case at bar, is only required to provide his guest with the conveyance he provides for himself.
We are not here concerned with the question of whether a different rule applies when there is a different relation between passenger and owner. It may be ordinary negligence for an automobile owner to drive a car with worn or defective tires, as it was in former days for a farmer to drive a wagon with a wheel likely to ‘dish,’ but such is not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolf v. Holton
...108 Pac. 2d 117. Respondent did not make a submissible case under persuasive authority of other jurisdictions. Gifford v. Dice, (1934) 269 Mich. 293, 257 N.W. 830, 96 A.L.R. 1477; Lennon et ux. v. Woodbury, (1935) 40 Pac. 2d 292; Fly v. Swink, (1933) 17 Tenn. App. 627, 69 S.W. 2d 902, 96 A.......
-
Alexander v. Jennings
...Jones v. Hicks, 358 Mich. 474, 100 N.W.2d 243; Vida v. Miller Allied Industries, 347 Mich. 257, 79 N.W.2d 493; Gifford v. Dice, 269 Mich. 293, 257 N.W. 830, 96 A.L.R. 1477; Spicer v. Bonker, 45 Mich. 630, 8 N.W. 518; Plotkin v. Northland Transportation Company, 204 Minn. 422, 283 N.W. 758; ......
-
Woolf v. Holton
... ... Hayes, (1940) 108 P.2d 117 ... Respondent did not make a submissible case under persuasive ... authority of other jurisdictions. Gifford v. Dice, ... (1934) 269 Mich. 293, 257 N.W. 830, 96 A. L. R. 1477; ... Lennon et ux. v. Woodbury, (1935) 40 P.2d 292; ... Fly v. Swink, ... ...
-
Mitchell v. Walters
... ... has the parent guest statute. Flint v. Voiles, 50 ... Wyo. 43. This court quoted with approval from Gifford v ... Dice (Mich.) 257 N.W. 830, indicating that the Michigan ... rules should be followed. The Michigan case held that the ... expression ... ...