Goss v. Overton

• Decision Date: 06 March 1934
• Docket Number: No. 103.,103.
• Citation: Goss v. Overton, 266 Mich. 62, 253 N.W. 217 (Mich. 1934)
• Parties: GOSS v. OVERTON.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

266 Mich. 62

253 N.W. 217

GOSS

v.OVERTON.

No. 103.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 6, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Allegan County; Fred T. Miles, Judge.

Action by Warren L. Goss, by Gertrude E. Goss, his guardian, against Glen Overton.From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Mason, Alexander, McCaslin & Cholette, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Leo W. Hoffman and Clare E. Hoffman, both of Allegan, for appellee.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Late in the afternoon of April 13, 1931, Ross Overton left a country club about 4 miles from Allegan with three friends to return home.He was driving a car owned by his father, the defendant in this case.Warren Goss, the plaintiff, was seated in front at the right of Overton.It was a hot, dry, and dusty afternoon, with practically no wind blowing.The road had been freshly graveled that morning and later worked with a truck scraper; it ran straight east and west until it made a sharp curve to the north just before entering the city limits.About 20 feet away from the center of this curve was a telephone pole.

Overton was driving the car at a speed of approximately 60 miles per hour up to the time of the accident.He passed a car proceeding in the same direction and another going the opposite way, both of which created a great deal of dust.There were other clouds of dust, varying in length and density and rendering visibility poor in many places.Just before reaching the curve, Overton drove into a ‘thick cloud of dust’ without lessening his speed.Suddenly a federal truck road scraper loomed up ahead.Overton swerved out of its path, was unsuccessful in his effort to negotiate the curve, and hit the telephone pole at the side of the road.Plaintiff was seriously injured.

The jury found for the plaintiff and the court, in denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, held that:

‘The driver had lived at Allegan all his life; he was well acquainted with the road and its condition and knew that it had recently been covered with loose gravel; he knew of the curve in the road and of course the dusty condition then prevailing was apparent and yet he drove at a rate of speed that he must have known placed his car beyond control in loose gravel and when the probable thing happened-another vehicle was overtaken, the inevitable occurred.

‘To grant this motion would be to ignore the elements of wanton and wilful misconduct so often referred to by our Supreme Court being expressed most recently in McLone v. Bean, 263 Mich. 113[248 N. W. 566].'

It is argued that the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in McLone v. Bean, 263 Mich. 113, 248 N. W. 566.It is true that in that case the...