Humenik v. Sternberg, 44
| Citation | 371 Mich. 667,124 N.W.2d 778 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 44,44 |
| Parties | Peter HUMENIK, General Guardian of Patricia Humenik, a minor, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mervyn H. STERNBERG, Special Administrator of the Estate of Anthony Bonacor, and Western Union Telegraph Company, a foreign corporation, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Ackerman, Kaplan & Blum, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.
Davidson, Gotshall, Kelly, Halsey & Kohl by Kenneth S. Halsey, Detroit, for defendant and appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
Plaintiff, as guardian of his minor daughter sued for injuries sustained by her when struck by an automobile owned by defendant company and driven by its employee, defendant Bonacor, now deceased. Plaintiff appeals from a directed verdict of no cause for action.
The minor, 6 years of age at the time, crossed the street in front of her home and entered a milk truck for the purpose of getting a piece of ice. The truck was parked on the west side of the street, headed south. When she had procured the ice she stepped out of the east, left side of the truck to recross the street to her home. Defendant's automobile came from the north, and, in passing the milk truck on its left side, struck the minor. She testified that she had looked for cars before leaving the truck, got out of the truck, again looked both ways for cars, and then was struck by defendant's automobile while she was still near and touching the truck. It was conceded at trial that defendant driver had been looking for a house number and that he did not see her before striking her. There is no showing of other cars being parked on the street in the vicinity and there is testimony from which an inference to the contrary reasonably might be drawn. The accident occurred on a sunny August afternoon.
The court directed the verdict on the ground that there were no proofs of actionable negligence on defendant driver's part sufficient to give rise to a jury question. The question of contributory negligence was not considered by the court, nor is it urged here by defendants. The proofs do not establish, as a matter of law, the minor's guilt of contributory negligence. That, necessarily, would have been the test in order to have based a directed verdict on that ground.
Defendants argue as facts the testimony most favorable to them. On this review of a directed verdict against plaintiff the proofs and reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer, In re
... ... 13, 95 L.Ed. 620, wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the first degree murder sentence of a 44-year old defendant, who had served penitentiary terms, admitted killing a woman in pursuance of a ... ...
-
Daniel v. McNamara, Docket No. 305
...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. Our view of the entire record in this light has led us to the conclusion that the trial court was correct in its rul......
-
Johnson v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co.
...facts are such that reasonable men could honestly reach different conclusions, then the question is for the jury. Humenik v. Sternberg, 371 Mich. 667, 124 N.W.2d 778 (1963), Kroll v. Katz, 374 Mich. 364, 132 N.W.2d 27 It is undisputed that the train was traveling with its headlight on brigh......
-
Silisky v. Midland Ross Corp.
...with "the proofs and reasonable inferences therefrom * * * viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff", Humenik v. Sternberg, 371 Mich. 667, 669, 124 N.W.2d 778 (1963); Signs v. Detroit Edison Co., 93 Mich.App. 626, 631, 287 N.W.2d 292 (1979). Under this standard of review, we find the......