Kok v. Lattin
| Decision Date | 03 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 12.,12. |
| Citation | 261 Mich. 362,246 N.W. 149 |
| Parties | KOK v. LATTIN. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Oceana County; Earl C. Pugsley, Judge.
Action by Benjamin Kok against Edson Lattin. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Leo W. Hoffman and Clare E. Hoffman, both of Allegan, and Carl E. Hoffman, of Holland, for appellant.
Fred E. Wetmore, of Hart (Mason, Alexander, McCaslin, Cholette & Mitts, of Grand Rapids, of counsel), for appellee.
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in an automobile collision at the intersection of two county highways. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's proofs, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. To review the judgment entered, the plaintiff has appealed.
The material facts are undisputed. The two roads are of gravel construction. They intersect at approximately right angles. On both roads at about 640 feet from the intersection is the usual sign marked ‘Cross Road.’ The plaintiff approached the intersection from the east. The defendant was coming from the south. They reached the intersection about the same time. Neither saw the other until they were about six feet apart, too late to avoid a collision. As the plaintiff's car approached the intersection it was traveling at a speed of 40 miles an hour. As it entered the intersection it slowed down to 20 miles an hour. The defendant's car approached at a speed of 40 miles an hour, and did not slow down as it entered the intersection. For half a mile back both drivers had a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection. Had the defendant looked he could have seen the plaintiff before and when he entered the intersection. Had the plaintiff looked he would have seen the defendant in time to have avoided the collision. He testified that he did look, and saw no car approaching. His testimony in this respect is contrary to the physical facts. As his view was unobstructed and the defendant's car was there in plain sight, it must be held that he did not look. If he had looked, he would have seen what was there to be seen. The two cars reached the intersection at about the same time. If either had looked, he could have avoided the accident. Failure to look was negligence. The undisputed material facts left no question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacDonald v. Skornia, 41.
...our many decisions so holding are: Smith v. Ormiston, 242 Mich. 600, 219 N.W. 618;Kerr v. Hayes, 250 Mich. 19, 229 N.W. 430;Kok v. Lattin, 261 Mich. 362, 246 N.W. 149;Ehrke v. Danek, 288 Mich. 498, 285 N.W. 37;Gallagher v. Walter, 299 Mich. 69, 299 N.W. 811. No idle ceremony is subserved by......
-
Weller v. Mancha
...Court has in a number of prior decisions given consideration to factual situations analogous to that in the case at bar. In Kok v. Lattin, 261 Mich. 362, 246 N.W. 149, the collision involved occurred at the intersection of two gravel roads, the vehicles reaching the intersection at approxim......
-
Francis v. Rumsey
...Mich. 346, 276 N.W. 474;DeCoopman v. Hammond, 279 Mich. 619, 273 N.W. 290;Donnelly v. Chulski, 275 Mich. 22, 265 N.W. 513;Kok v. Lattin, 261 Mich. 362, 246 N.W. 149;McKelvey v. Hill, 259 Mich. 16, 242 N.W. 822;Kerr v. Hayes, 250 Mich. 19, 229 N.W. 430. Plaintiff contends that he was entitle......
-
Carey v. Derose, 36.
...of contributory negligence. Molda v. Clark, 236 Mich. 277, 210 N.W. 203;Neeb v. Jacobson, 245 Mich. 678, 224 N.W. 401.’ In Kok v. Lattin, 261 Mich. 362, 246 N.W. 149, it was said: ‘Had the defendant looked he could have seen the plaintiff before and when he entered the intersection. Had the......