Hunt v. Deming
| Decision Date | 11 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 37,38,s. 37 |
| Citation | 134 N.W.2d 662,375 Mich. 581 |
| Parties | A. I. HUNT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jon Robert DEMING, Cadillac State Bank, Executor of the Estate of H. S. Deming, Deceased, Defendants and Appellees. Mabel I. HUNT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jon Robert DEMING, Cadillac State Bank, Executor of the Estate of H. S. Deming, Deceased, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Eric E. Humpsch, Lansing, for plaintiffs and appellants; Seth R. Burwell, of counsel.
Charles H. Menmuir, Traverse City, Nuel N. Donley, Big Rapids, for defendants and appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
SOURIS, Justice (for affirmance).
This appeal arises out of an automobile accident which occurred on a rainy November evening in 1960 in Mecosta county. Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Hunt, were proceeding easterly on highway M-20 in an automobile driven by Mr. Hunt. As they drove along, a stalled automobile was pushed onto the eastbound lane of the highway ahead of the Hunts from a driveway intersecting the highway on the south. To avoid a collision the Hunt vehicle came to a stop on the paved portion of the highway, and while so stopped was struck from the rear by an automobile driven by defendant Jon Deming. Plaintiffs, claiming damages, brought suits which were consolidated for trial. A jury returned a verdict of no cause for action. Plaintiffs appeal from the trial judge's denial of their subsequent motion for judgment not-withstanding the verdict or for new trial.
Plaintiffs first argue that defendant Deming was guilty of negligence as a matter of law in failing to operate his vehicle so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead, C.L.S.1961, § 257.627 (Stat.Ann.1960 Rev. § 9.2327). The disabled car was pushed into the Hunts' path, just as they had topped a rise in the highway and were heading down a curve bearing to the right. Defendant Deming testified that he had been following the Hunt car for several miles but that he had lost sight of it after it had topped the rise and did not see it again until his own car came over the rise, at which time the Hunt vehicle appeared to be moving less rapidly, whereupon Deming slowed his speed from 45 to 40 miles per hour. At this time he was about 500 feet from the Hunt car and he testified that he did not become aware that it was stopped until he was 150 feet from it, whereupon he applied his brakes but nonetheless collided with the Hunt car. Deming further testified that before the collision he never saw the disabled vehicle. He claimed that the sudden emergency created by the presence of the disabled vehicle on the highway, necessitating the stoppage of the Hunt vehicle, accounted for his own failure to stop sooner.
We think this evidence, if believed, would entitle a jury to find that Deming was not operating his vehicle in an imprudent fashion under the circumstances, and that defendant's response to the sudden emergency confronting him was reasonable, thereby excusing compliance with the requirements of the assured clear distance ahead statute. This being so, the trial court did not err in refusing to find Deming guilty of negligence as a matter of law. See Dismukes v. Michigan Express, Inc. (1962), 368 Mich. 197, 118 N.W.2d 238, and cases cited therein. See, also, McKinney v. Anderson (1964), 373 Mich. 414, 129 N.W.2d 851, and Baker v. Alt (1965), 374 Mich. 492, 496-497, 132 N.W.2d 614.
Plaintiffs also allege that the trial judge committed numerous errors in his charge to the jury. We shall not detail these allegations because we do not think they are properly before us on this appeal, plaintiffs having failed to make timely objection to the instructions as required by GCR 1963, 516.2:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilhelm v. Detroit Edison Co.
...jury instruction, and thus Edison's objection to the instruction has not been preserved for appellate review. Hunt v. Deming, 375 Mich. 581, 584--585, 134 N.W.2d 662 (1965), and GCR 1963, The Mall argues on appeal, as it did below in the course of its motion for directed verdict and for jud......
-
Kirby v. Larson
...properly be protected and objections to erroneous jury instructions assuredly be saved for appellate review." Hunt v. Deming, 375 Mich. 581, 585, 134 N.W.2d 662, 664 (1965). Thus, the judge in the case at bar erred when he permitted the jury to begin deliberations prior to hearing counsel's......
-
Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products Corp.
...that review of an error to which no objection was raised is appropriate in order to avoid manifest injustice. Hunt v. Deming, 375 Mich. 581, 585, 134 N.W.2d 662 (1965). We strongly believe the Court's intervention here is appropriate to avoid prospective misapplication of duty/standard of c......
-
Sam v. Balardo
...not properly before appellate courts. Goodwin v. S. A. Healy Co., 383 Mich. 300, 305-306, 174 N.W.2d 755 (1970); Hunt v. Deming, 375 Mich. 581, 584-585, 134 N.W.2d 662 (1965).7 See Corley v. Logan, 35 Mich.App. 199, 202, 192 N.W.2d 319 (1971); Basic Food Industries, Inc. v. Travis, Warren, ......