Kerr v. Hayes, 156.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1930
• Docket Number: No. 156.,156.
• Citation: 250 Mich. 19,229 N.W. 430
• Parties: KERR v. HAYES et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

250 Mich. 19

229 N.W. 430

KERR

v.HAYES et al.

No. 156.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 6, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, Shiawassee County; Joseph H. Collins, Judge.

Action by William A. Kerr against John H. Hayes and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant named brings error.

Reversed, without new trial.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

George E. Pardee, of Owosso, for appellant.

W. A. Seegmiller, of Owosso, for appellee.

FEAD, J.

A car, owned and driven by plaintiff, south in the center of Maryette street in Durand, at a rate of about 15 miles per hour, was struck by defendant Salisbury's car, driven by defendant Hayes, west on the right-hand side of Brand street, at a rate of 35 to 40 miles per hour, the collision occurring in the center of the street intersection, about 27 to 30 feet from the north crosswalk. Neither was a stop street, trunk highway, or superior to the other. Plaintiff at any point within 85 feet of the center of the crossing had a clear view of an equal or greater distance along Brand street to the east. He came into Maryette street a block from the intersection, looked straight ahead until he was close to the crossing, then looked to the right because he thought cars from that direction had the right of way over him, and did not look to the left, nor see defendant's car at any time until an instant before the collision and too late to avoid it, although he increased his speed as the best chance to escape injury. He testified he could not stop his car in less than 20 to 30 feet. Plaintiff had judgment, and the question is whether he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Plaintiff's claim of freedom from contributory negligence has no other basis than that, being on the right of defendant, he had the right of way at the crossing, Act No. 318, Pub. Acts 1927, § 20, because he drove into the intersection without looking in the direction from which a prudent person would expect approaching cars in the ordinary use of the road and without having his car under such control as would enable him to avoid collision in that section of the highway upon which they would travel.

[1] He relies on Pline v. Parsons, 231 Mich. 466, 204 N. W. 131;Kiefer v. Fink, 236 Mich. 274, 210 N. W. 205;Grodi v. Mierow, 244 Mich. 511, 221 N. W. 637, which hold that, where a driver reaches a road intersection in advance of another and under conditions of relative distances and speeds as would induce in a reasonably prudent man the belief that he can cross in safety, he is not guilty of...