Hartley v. Miller

• Decision Date: 13 March 1911
• Parties: HARTLEY v. MILLER et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

165 Mich. 115
130 N.W. 336

HARTLEY
v.
MILLER et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 13, 1911.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Morse Rohnert, Judge.

Action by William Hartley against Frank P. Miller and another. Judgment for defendant Miller, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

See, also, 128 N. W. 1097.

Argued before BIRD, HOOKER, MOORE, BROOKE, and STONE, JJ.

[130 N.W. 336]

McHugh & Gallagher, for appellant.

Albert McClatchey, for appellees.

STONE, J.

This case is before us upon a case-made after judgment.

It appears that the plaintiff was a street car conductor in the employ of the D. U. R. in the city of Detroit. On Sunday, May 24, 1908, about 3:45 p. m., he was engaged in his duties as conductor on a Fourteenth avenue car, running east on Henry street from Grand River avenue to Cass avenue. The car was an open one with a running board on the right-hand side. The plaintiff was standing on this running board, collecting fares. The defendant, Frank P. Miller, at this time was the owner of an automobile. On the night preceding the day in question the defendant August Lootens visited said Miller at his home and asked for the loan of his automobile on the succeeding day. Miller consented to let Lootens have the automobile on the following day. Accordingly, between 2 and 3 o'clock p. m. Lootens called at Miller's home for the automobile, and on his (Lootens') invitation, Miller entered the auto and rode to his (Lootens') home, Lootens operating the machine; and when they arrived there, Lootens and his company insisted upon Miller's accompanying them on the ride, and Miller finally acceded to their invitation

[130 N.W. 337]

and went with them. There were two front seats in the automobile. Lootens sat on the right-hand side, in the driver's seat, and operated the machine. Miller occupied the other front seat. It is admitted that Miller had loaned the machine to Lootens; that he (Miller) accompanied the party on Lootens' invitation, and as Lootens' guest, and that Miller did not in any way participate in the operation or control of the automobile. Lootens had had considerable experience in the operation of automobiles, though he had never driven this particular machine before the day of the accident. After leaving Lootens' home, the party started on the drive, and finally reached Second avenue, and proceeded north along that thoroughfare toward Henry street, and came into collision with the street car on which plaintiff was employed, injuring him, at the...