Holpainen v. American Motors Corp.
Decision Date | 29 June 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 6972,3 |
Citation | 181 N.W.2d 38,25 Mich.App. 124 |
Parties | Julia HOLPAINEN and Beatrice Rousse, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Andrew H. Wisti, Wisti, Jaaskelainen & Bourland, Hancock, for appellant.
Messner, LaBine & Vairo, Houghton, for appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and J. H. GILLIS and O'HARA, * JJ.
Plaintiffs Julia Holpainen and Beatrice Rousse appeal from a directed verdict in favor of defendant American Motors Corporation. The initial action was brought to recover damages to their automobile resulting from a fire.
In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendant was careless, reckless and negligent in the manufacture of the automobile and a spark from defective ignition wiring ignited gasoline in the flooded carburetor, which in turn the fire. At the time of the particular incident, the automobile in question registered slightly over 1,000 miles. In addition to the above claim, plaintiffs set forth a claim based upon breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
Plaintiffs raise several issues on appeal, the most meritorious and the one which we shall address is whether the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of the defendant's negligence.
The general rule, with respect to directed verdicts, was recently summarized in Daniel v. McNamara (1968), 10 Mich.App. 299, 304, 159 N.W.2d 339, 341:
'On a motion for directed verdict, the question is not one of the preponderance of the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, but whether plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to go to a jury on a material question of fact, which, if determined in plaintiff's favor, would entitle her to a judgment.
"On this review of a directed verdict against plaintiff the proofs and reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff.' Humenik v. Sternberg (1963), 371 Mich. 667, 669, 124 N.W.2d 778, 779.'
See Pappas v. City of Bay City (1969), 17 Mich.App. 745, 170 N.W.2d 306.
Likewise, the Court in Schoepper v. Hancock Chemical Co. (1897), 113 Mich. 582, 71 N.W. 1081, reversed the lower court's directed verdict on the following grounds:
This view was supported recently in Schedlbauer v. Chris-Craft Corporation (1968), 381 Mich. 217, 160 N.W.2d 889; Emery v. Chesapeake & O.R. Co. (1964), 372 Mich. 663, 127 N.W.2d 826; Cummings v. Grand T.W.R. Co. (1964), 372 Mich. 695...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swarthout v. Beard
...most favorable to plaintiff on review. Humenik v. Sternberg (1963), 371 Mich. 667, 669, 124 N.W.2d 778; Holpainen v. American Motors Corporation (1970), 25 Mich.App. 124, 181 N.W.2d 38; Cusumano v. The Stroh Brewery Company (1970), 26 Mich.App. 549, 182 N.W.2d Nordstrom-Myers, Inc., as gene......