McKelvey v. Hill, 137
| Decision Date | 06 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 137,April Term.,137 |
| Citation | 259 Mich. 16,242 N.W. 822 |
| Parties | McKELVEY v. HILL. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; William B. Brown, Judge.
Action by Clifford McKelvey against George Hill, Jr. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with direction.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Dunham, Taylor & Allaben, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Linsey, Shivel & Phelps, of Grand Rapids (John H. Vander Wal, of Grand Rapids, of counsel), for appellee.
Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of his wife's injury at a highway intersection collision between an automobile driven by George McKelvey, in which plaintiff's wife, Hazel McKelvey, was riding, and that driven by defendant on September 3, 1929. George McKelvey was driving in a westerly direction on the Muskegon-Cedar Springs highway, and at the intersection of Walker road his car was struck by that driven by defendant, causing the injuries to plaintiff's wife, resulting in the damages which plaintiff sues for. The negligence of defendant complained of is that he did not have his automobile under control, operated his automobile at an excessive rate of speed, and defendant, having ample space to do so, did not turn his automobile to the left and rear of that in which plaintiff's wife was riding, so as to avoid injury. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
By appropriate assignments of error defendant raises several questions; contending he was not negligent, the driver of the car in which plaintiff's wife was riding was guilty of contributory negligence; the charge of the court was argumentative and prejudicial; and the unsolicited comments, voluntary interruptions, and explanations of the testimony by the trial court precluded defendant from having a fair trial. The trial court did not hold defendant negligent, but held the question of defendant's negligence was for the jury.
Defendant had the right of way. The intersection was a stop crossing, so far as the driver of the car in which plaintiff's wife was riding is concerned. Defendant says he could have stopped his car within a distance of 60 feet, and he saw the driver of the car in which plaintiff's wife was riding was not going to stop when he was 100 feet away from the intersection. He did not stop his car. The question of defendant's negligence was for the jury.
Defendant was driving on a through trunk line highway. The driver of the car in which plaintiff's wife was riding was driving upon an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francis v. Rumsey
...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 entitled to assume that defendant would obey the law ......
-
Carey v. Derose, 36.
...233 Mich. 234, 206 N.W. 356;Richardson v. Williams, 249 Mich. 350, 228 N.W. 766;Kerr v. Hayes, 250 Mich. 19, 229 N.W. 430;McKelvey v. Hill, 259 Mich. 16, 242 N.W. 822; Brodie v. City of Detroit, 275 Mich. 626,267 N.W. 579;Young v. Martinich, 279 Mich. 267, 271 N.W. 753;DeCoopman v. Hammond,......
-
Stephens v. Koprowski
...failure to maintain observation for oncoming cars, or if a driver ‘[takes] a chance in the face of known danger’ (McKelvey v. Hill, 259 Mich. 16, 242 N.W. 822, 823), contributory negligence must be concluded as a matter of law. Smith v. Wassink, 262 Mich. 639, 247 N.W. 766;Carey v. DeRose, ......
- Balcer Bros. Motor Coach Co. v. Niemann