Lacaeyse v. Roe, 22.
Decision Date | 20 February 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 22.,22. |
Citation | 17 N.W.2d 765,310 Mich. 591 |
Parties | LACAEYSE v. ROE (two cases). |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Kalamazoo County; George V. weimer, judge.
Actions, tried together, by Henry Lacaeyse and his wife, Mary Lacaeyse, respectively, against Carl S. Roe for damages arising from an automobile collision. From an order granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict of no cause of action, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Jackson, Fitzgerald & Dalm, of Kalamazoo, for appellants.
Howard, Haward & Howard, of Kalamazoo, for appellee.
These two cases arose out of the same automobile accident and were tried in the circuit court as one case. The jury disagreed and was discharged by the court, whereupon the defendant renewed his motion for directed verdict of no cause of action on the ground that plaintiff, Henry Lacaeyse, was chargeable with contributory negligence as a matter of law. Both plaintiffs have appealed from the order granting this motion. The two cases are combined on this appeal; and since they are controlled by the same record, because any negligence of Mr. Lacaeyse is imputed to Mrs. Lacaeyse, we herein refer to Mr. Lacaeyse as the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's claim for damages arose out of an automobile accident occurring about 8:30 a m. on July 4, 1942, a clear day, at the intersection of US-31 and US-31A in Muskegon County. The plaintiff, accompanied by his wife, was driving his 1934 Plymouth sedan in a southeasterly direction on US-31A, a two-lane cement highway. Defendant, accompanied by his wife and father-in-law, was driving in a northwesterly direction on US-31, a fourlane highway. Defendant was driving at least 55 or 60 miles per hour. Each driver as he approached the point of collision had an unobstructed view of the other's vehicle. At the point where plaintiff stopped his automobile before entering US-31 he could ‘see to his left approximately a half a mile all clear.’ There was a ‘Stop’ sign on US-31A and a ‘Slow Down-Intersection’ sign on US-31. The collision occurred on the defendant's left of the center line of US-31 and in the intersection where the plaintiff was in the process of making a left turn. Marks on the pavement disclosed that the defendant's car skidded 165 feet before hitting the plaintiff's car. On this appeal the negligence of the defendant may be assumed, the question being confined to the contributory negligence as a matter of law of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff testified in part as follows:
* * *
* * *
* * *
‘Mr. Howard: I move that what he thought was necessary go out.
‘The Court: That may go out.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krause v. Ryan, s. 30
... ... Cook, 256 Mich. 266, 239 N.W. 314, whether a stop highway was involved or not, and in Lacaeyse v. Roe, 310 Mich. 591, 17 N.W.2d 765, the disfavored driver entering the stop highway from the subordinate road was found guilty of contributory ... ...
-
MacDonald v. Skornia, 41.
...284 Mich. 88, 278 N.W. 774;Koehler v. Thom, 285 Mich. 593, 281 N.W. 336;Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich. 186, 284 N.W. 693;Lacaeyse v. Roe, 310 Mich. 591, 17 N.W.2d 765;Martin v. Department of Street Rys. of City of Detroit, 314 Mich. 77, 22 N.W.2d 78. A driver who proceeds into an intersecti......
-
Buehler v. Beadia
...v. Koprowski, 295 Mich. 213, 294 N.W. 158. On the contrary, the facts in this case bring it within our holding in Lacaeyse v. Roe, 310 Mich. 591, 17 N.W.2d 765, in which defendant swerved to the left at the last moment in a frantic effort to avoid plaintiff's automobile which had suddenly p......
-
Bruer v. City of Detroit, Dept. of St. Rys., 17
...Mich. 88, 278 N.W. 774; Koehler v. Thom, 285 Mich. 593, 281 N.W. 336; Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich. 186, 284 N.W. 693; Lacaeyse v. Roe, 310 Mich. 591, 17 N.W.2d 765; Martin v. City of Detroit, 314 Mich. 77, 22 N.W.2d 78; MacDonald v. Skornia, 322 Mich. 370, 34 N.W.2d 4. Authority to the co......