Klop v. Bos, 43.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 43.,43. |
| Citation | 248 N.W. 538,263 Mich. 27 |
| Parties | KLOP v. VANDEN BOS et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kalamazoo County; George V. Weimer, Circuit Judge.
Action by Richard Klop, as administrator of the estate of Johannes Klop, deceased, against Cornelius Vanden Bos, Sr., and Cornelius Vanden Bos, Jr., also known as Casey Vanden Bos. A verdict was returned for both defendants. A new trial was granted as to Cornelius Vanden Bos, Jr. From a judgment for defendant Cornelius Vanden Bos, Sr., plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
William J. Howard, of Kalamazoo, for appellant.
Charles H. Farrell and Charles L. Dibble, both of Kalamazoo, for appellees.
This action was brought to recover damages for injuries resulting in the death of Johannes Klop, a twelve year old boy who died from gunshot wounds inflicted by defendant Cornelius Vanden Bos, Jr.
The deceased in company with the defendant Cornelius Vanden Bos, Jr., and his younger brother, John Vanden Bos, were hunting rabbits. On returning from the hunt they passed through an open field. Cornelius was a short distance in advance of the other two boys. He carried a loaded double-barreled gun across his left arm. His attention was attracted to the boys behind him and he turned about towards them with his gun pointing directly at the deceased. In some manner not clearly shown by the record, the gun was discharged and the shot struck the deceased in the abdomen inflicting wounds from which he died a few hours later. It was the claim of the plaintiff that Cornelius either intentionally pointed the gun at the deceased or handled it so negligently that it became pointed at him and was discharged. Cornelius Vanden Bos, Sr., the father of Cornelius, Jr., owned the gun. He was made a party defendant on the theory that, considering the age and inexperience of his son, he was negligent in permitting him to use the gun.
On the trial the defendants contended that the discharge of the gun were merely accidental and that there was no actionable negligence on the part of either defendant. The jury evidently took this view of it and rendered a verdict of no cause of action as to both defendants.
On motion of the plaintiff the court granted a new trial as to Cornelius Vanden Bos, Jr., but entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of the father. The plaintiff has appealed.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the trial court should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sabatinelli v. Butler
...v. Barrett, 120 Cal.App.2d 625, 628--629, 261 P.2d 551; Pepper v. Hoffecker, 192 A.2d 213, 215--216 (Super.Ct.Del.); Klop v. Vanden Bos, 263 Mich. 27, 29, 248 N.W. 538. The circumstances of this case are to be distinguished from cases where there was evidence that the defendant knew or shou......
-
Prater v. Burns
...of considerable experience in handling same. See and compare: Herndobler v. Rippen (1915) 75 Or. 22, 146 P. 140; Klop v. Vanden Bos (1933) 263 Mich. 27, 248 N.W. 538; Palm v. Ivorson (1905) 117 Ill.App. 535, as cited at 68 A.L.R.2d In this respect we note the Court in Smith v. Salvaggio, su......