Howell v. Hakes, 93.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 93.,93. |
| Parties | HOWELL v. HAKES. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Ingham County; Leland W. Carr, Judge.
Action by Nellie M. Howell against John Hakes. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
James A. Greene, of Lansing, for appellant.
Charles P. VanNote, and A. M. Cummins, both of Lansing, for appellee.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries received in an automobile collision. The plaintiff was riding in a Ford car driven by Mrs. Granger. Their way led westerly on a paved trunk line between Lansing and Charlotte. They intended to cross the highway to the left at a point where it intersects with the county line road. When they reached the intersection, Mrs. Granger brought her car to a full stop. She and the plaintiff both looked to the west and say they saw defendant's car from 300 to 500 feet away coming toward them at a rapid rate of speed. Thinking they had time to cross, they turned to the left, and, as their car was over or nearly over the pavement, defendant crashed into them. The defendant says that, when he first observed the Granger car, it was stopped and he supposed was waiting for him to pass. When he saw it turning to cross the road, he applied his brakes and skidded for 70 or 80 feet, but was unable to avoid the collision.
The case was tried by the plaintiff on the double theory of ordinary negligence and subsequent negligence. The trial court refused to submit the latter question to the jury. The verdict was not cause of action. A motion for a new trial was denied. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and a review is sought in this court on writ of error.
In a proper charge, the court left to the jury the claims as to the negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. If he was right in refusing to submit the question of subsequent negligence, the verdict should not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence. If the car in which plaintiff was riding was hit while it was on the pavement, her contributory negligence consisted not so much in attempting to cross the road in view of the traffic, but in failing to look while she was crossing. The evidence is quite conclusive that, after they had started to cross, neither of the women looked again in the direction from which they knew the defendant's car was approaching at a high rate of speed. As the circuit judge rightly said: ‘Had they done so, it is quite conceivable that they would have seen the rapid approach of the defendant's car and by merely accelerating the speed of her car, Mrs. Granger might have avoided the impact.’
There was also evidence from which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conant v. Bosworth, s. 57
...610. And see Richter v. Harper, 95 Mich. 221, at page 225, 54 N.W. 768.' The above decision was cited and followed in Howell v. Hakes, 251 Mich. 372, 232 N.W. 216, 217, where it was recognized that if there was concurrent negligence of the parties the doctrine of subsequent negligence could......
-
Davidson v. City of Detroit
...particular facts and circumstances. Griewski v. Ironwood & Bessemer Railway & Light Co., supra; Bibbard v. Cursan, supra; Howell v. Hakes, 251 Mich. 372, 232 N.W. 216;Willett v. Smith, 260 Mich. 101, 244 N.W. 246;Goss v. Overton, 266 Mich. 62, 253 N.W. 217;Sherman v. Yarger, 272 Mich. 644, ......
-
Zeni v. Anderson
...v. Ironwood & Bessemer Railway & Light Co., supra (209 Mich. 10, 176 N.W. 439) (1920); Gibbard v. Cursan, supra; Howell v. Hakes, 251 Mich. 372, 232 N.W. 216 (1930); Willett v. Smith, 260 Mich. 101, 244 N.W. 246 (1932); Goss v. Overton, 266 Mich. 62, 253 N.W. 217 (1934); Sherman v. Yarger, ......
-
Motley v. Robinette
...issue. Conant v. Bosworth, 332 Mich. 51, 50 N.W.2d 842 (1952), Gallagher v. Walter, 299 Mich. 69, 299 N.W. 811 (1941), Howell v. Hakes, 251 Mich. 372, 232 N.W. 216 (1930). The Michigan Supreme Court has laid down the elements of subsequent negligence. The elements are as follows: 1. Plainti......