Hilliker v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 10 December 1934
• Docket Number: No. 29.,29.
• Citation: Hilliker v. Nelson, 269 Mich. 359, 257 N.W. 717 (Mich. 1934)
• Parties: HILLIKER v. NELSON.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

269 Mich. 359

257 N.W. 717

HILLIKER

v.NELSON.

No. 29.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 10, 1934.

Action by George A. Hilliker against Frank Nelson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; Leonard D. Verdier, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Irving H. Smith, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Linsey, Shivel & Phelps, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

BUTZEL, Justice.

George A. Hilliker alleges that on October 15, 1932, he was driving in a northwesterly direction on state trunk line M-37, and that, as he approached the village of Kent City, he slowed down to a rate of 20 to 25 miles per hour. M-37, running diagonally southeast to northwest, interects the main street of Kent City, which runs north and south. Main street is paved north of M-37, the paved surface being about 45 feet wide, but south of M-37 it is graveled and much narrower. While the width of M-37 is 18 feet at the point of the intersection with Main street, there are broad approaches or aprons on the northeasterly an northwesterly corners, and the corners are filled in with concrete, creating a wide surface, of which the outer portions are concave in form, so as to afford ample space for turns at the intersection. The base or portion of each of these approaches abutting M-37 is approximately 60 feet wide, when measured from the extreme easterly point of the east approach to the east edge of Main street, and from the extreme westerly point of the west approach to the west edge of Main street. From the easterly end of the approach to the extreme westerly end of the west approach, where Main street runs into M-37, the distance is approximately 180 feet. Railroad tracks, consisting of a main line and a switch track south of the main line, cross Main street north of M-37. It is 64 feet from the northerly edge of M-37 up to the first rail of the switch track, measured in a straight line. Immediately south of the southerly rail of the switch track, and on the west side of Main street, facing north, is a ‘Stop’ sign. This sign is about 60 feet north of the northerly edge of M-37. There is also a ‘Slow’ sign on M-37 not far from the intersection.

Plaintiff claims that as he approached the intersection of the two highways, at a point about 175 feet east of the middle of the intersection, he noticed defendant approaching in his car along Main street in a southerly direction towards M-37. Plaintiff further testified that he was familiar with that particular intersection, and had knowledge of the ‘Stop’ sign on Main street before the intersection, and that he drove on into the intersection in the belief that defendant would heed the mandate of the ‘Stop’ sign; that as he approached the middle of the intersection, he observed defendant for the second time, and at this time defendant was coming across the switch track just before the ‘Stop’ sign, at a point approximately 60 feet from the northerly edge of M-37, traveling at about 25 miles per hour; that he nevertheless still believed defendant would come to a stop before the intersection, and therefore continued to drive through the intersection; that when he again looked to the right an instant later, defendant's car was almost upon him; that he then immediately turned toward the south, in the hope of avoiding an accident, but instead ran into defendant's car with such force that his own car was badly damaged and he sustained personal injuries. The testimony further indicates that at the time of the collision defendant was turning into M-37 in order to go in a northwesterly direction on M-37, the same direction in which plaintiff was traveling, and that the collision occurred in the most westerly part of the west approach to the intersection. The afternoon was clear, the pavement dry, and there were no obstructions of any kind on the highway.

There is no doubt but that defendant was guilty of negligence in not heeding the direction of the ‘Stop’ sign, as required by law. He, however, claims that plaintiff had ample time to avoid the accident, and that if plaintiff had made proper observations and seen defendant's car turning into M-37 ahead of him, he could have come to a stop within 12 to 15 feet and thus avoided the accident. Defendant claims that there were absolutely no other cars or obstructions in the way, so that ...