Knight v. Merignac, 96
| Decision Date | 10 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 96,Oct. Term, 1937.,96 |
| Citation | 275 N.W. 732,281 Mich. 684 |
| Parties | KNIGHT v. MERIGNAC. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Grace M. Knight against John Merignac. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shiawassee County; Joseph H. Collins, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Cummins & Cummins, of Lansing, for appellant.
Clay Campbell, of Lansing (Charles P. Van Note, of Lansing, of counsel), for appellee.
The afternoon of April 11, 1936, plaintiff was driving a Ford coupé south on North Pine street in the city of Lansing and at a point where Pine street intersects West Genesee street. At about the same time, defendant was driving his car west on Genesee street and collided with the car driven by plaintiff. Neither street has any preference over the other.
The record shows that plaintiff was driving about three feet from the west curb of Pine street at a rate of about 15 miles per hour, and when about 40 feet from the north curb line of Genesee street she looked to the right and saw no cars approaching; she then looked to the left, and, seeing no cars, continued on into the intersection. As she approached near the center line of Genesee street, she saw a car coming from her left and two or three car lengths away. She then attempted to speed up her car, but was unable to avoid a collision. She sustained severe injuries, and recovered a judgment in the circuit court of Shiawassee county.
Defendant appeals and contends that the judgment should be reversed, as plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
From an examination of the facts contained in the record and the applicable law, we are constrained to agree with the defendant. We have in mind that the defendant was clearly guilty of negligence in traveling at a rate of speed estimated to be between 25 and 30 miles per hour, and in his failure to give plaintiff the right of way; she having entered the intersection first. But, when we examine plaintiff's testimony, we find that when plaintiff was about 40 feet from the intersection, she looked to the left and saw no cars approaching. A map of the intersection shows that at the point where plaintiff first looked to the left, she had a clear view of Genesee street a distance of 160 feet east of the point of collision. From the time that plaintiff first looked to the left and saw no car, she traveled a distance of approximately 60 feet at the rate of 15 miles per hour, while during this same period defendant traveling at the rate of 30 miles per hour would have been 120 feet east of the point of the collision or 100 feet east of the east line of Pine street, and by carrying these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacDonald v. Skornia, 41.
...without seeing approaching traffic which is there plainly to be seen. Zuidema v. Bekkering, 256 Mich. 327, 239 N.W. 333;Knight v. Merignac, 281 Mich. 684, 275 N.W. 732;Carey v. De Rose, 286 Mich. 321, 282 N.W. 165. Furthermore, if he takes but a fleeting glimpse and sees a vehicle approachi......
-
Morrison v. Grass, s. 58
...300 Mich. 188, 1 N.W.2d 505. No general rule, however, can be stated that will govern all factual situations.' In Knight v. Merignac, 281 Mich. 684, 275 N.W. 732, 733, we said: ‘The rule as to one who drives into an intersection without looking and is hit by another car over which he has th......
-
Carey v. Derose, 36.
...an intersection, and maintain observation while crossing. Mr. Justice Sharpe, in writing the opinion of the court in Knight v. Merignac, 281 Mich. 684, 275 N.W. 732, quoted, with approval, the following from Zuidema v. Bekkering, 256 Mich. 237, 239 N.W. 333: ‘It will not do to say that plai......
-
Heckler v. Laing
...approaching from his left and is chargeable with what he could have seen.’ See, also, Zuidema v. Bekkering, supra; Knight v. Merignac, 281 Mich. 684, 275 N.W. 732. The view of plaintiff's decedent to his left (south) being unobstructed, he either saw, or is legally presumed to have seen, de......