McGrath v. Hargraves

• Decision Date: 20 February 1945
• Docket Number: No. 70.,70.
• Citation: McGrath v. Hargraves, 310 Mich. 510, 17 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. 1945)
• Parties: McGRATH v. HARGRAVES.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

310 Mich. 510

17 N.W.2d 733

McGRATH

v.HARGRAVES.

No. 70.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 20, 1945.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Gogebic County; Thomas J. landers, judge.

Action by Thomas McGrath against Ella Hargraves, individually and doing business as Oriental Steam Dye Works, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision.Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Charles M. Humphrey and Charles M. Humphrey, Jr., both of Ironwood, for appellant.

Wm. G. Cloon, of Ironwood, for appellee.

WIEST, Justice.

About 7 o'clock, the morning of July 10, 1943, plaintiff was driving his automobile north on a county highway, known as the Lake Superior road in Gogebic county, following a truck owned by defendant and driven by her employee.The highway had a 20-foot concrete surface, with 10-foot gravel shoulders.The morning was bright, the road dry, visibility good, and no other cars were on the highway.In Ironwood township, just outside the north limits of the city of Ironwood, there was a collision between the cars at the point of a private driveway.Plaintiff was injured and brought this action to recover damages.Upon trial by jury he had verdict and judgment for $2,250.

Defendant reviews by appeal, claiming, in the main, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and the court was in error in not so holding upon the motions for a directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.

Plaintiff testified he tried to pass the truck on the left and proper side.The truck driver, without any warning of such intention and despite notice by plaintiff sounding his car horn of intention to pass, suddenly swerved the truck to enter the private drive and struck plaintiff's car in the center.

Defendant contended the collision was with the rear end of the truck and caused by plaintiff's negligence in not obeying the statutory law of the road.

The conflicting claims of the parties presented a question of fact for jury determination and precluded the court from finding plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

It is the unvarying rule in this State that, in passing on a motion for a directed verdict at any stage of a case, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the direction is sought and assume the same to be true.See, Callaghan's Michigan Digest, vol. 17, p. 535, for a long list of cases on the subject.

The court instructed the jury:

‘Now, there are certain statutes of the Michigan motor vehicle law which have been argued to you or presented in the pleadings and briefly the statutes applicable to this case are as follows:

‘It is the law of this State that any person who drives a vehicle upon the highway carelessly and heedlessly and in wilful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, is guilty of reckless driving and of negligence.

‘You are also charged that the statutory speed limit on Lake Road from US Highway 2 to the intersection of Margaret street, which would be within the city limits, is 25 miles per hour.

‘You are also charged that the speed limit on Lake Road north of Margaret street and in the immediate vicinity of the scene of the accident here in question, is 30 miles per hour, as designated by the speed sign placed there, presumably under lawful authority.

‘It is the law of this State that any person driving a vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and any other condition then existing.

‘It is also the law of this State that no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.

‘It is the law of this...