Moore v. U.S. Truck Co.

• Citation: 244 N.W. 228,260 Mich. 56
• Decision Date: 16 September 1932
• Docket Number: No. 169.,169.
• Parties: MOORE v. UNITED STATES TRUCK CO., Inc.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

260 Mich. 56

244 N.W. 228

MOORE

v.UNITED STATES TRUCK CO., Inc.

No. 169.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 16, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Fred W. George, Judge.

Action by Marion D. Moore against the United States Truck Company, Incorporated. From the judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Evelyn A. Greene, of Detroit (Cady & Pepper, of Port Huron, of counsel), for appellant.

Baird, Watson & McColl, of Port Huron, for appellee.

WIEST, J.

Plaintiff, while riding in an automobile, driven by Hilton Moran, was injured in a rear-end collision with a stalled truck with trailers standing upon a highway. She brought suit against Moran and the owner of the truck, charging Moran with gross and wanton and willful negligence in operating his car and the truck company with negligence in parking the truck upon the highway without a rear light. The accident happened about 10 o'clock at night.

At the close of plaintiff's proofs the court held that no case had been made against Moran under the Guest Act (C. L. 1929, § 4648), but let the case proceed against the owner of the truck, and plaintiff had verdict and judgment.

The Guest Act has not abrogated the rule that Moran's negligence is imputable to plaintiff, and bars recovery against the truck company. However, plaintiff proceeded against the truck company on the theory that Moran was guilty of no negligence.

The pavement, at the point of accident, for south-bound traffic, so called. The truck with had four ‘lanes,’ so called. The truck with two trailers was headed south and stalled in going up a hill in the second lane from the west side of the pavement and partly over the side of the third lane. The night was misty. Moran was going south and approached the rear of the stalled truck and trailers at a speed of about thirty-five miles per hour. While so driving another car went by and in front of him and almost instantly cut out to avoid the truck. This car, when in front, was only four or five feet from Moran's car, and effectually cut off his view of the road ahead, and when that car swerved to avoid the truck, Moran discovered the truck about fifteen feet ahead of him and attempted to turn out, but his car skidded against the rear trailer.

The defendant truck company was guilty of negligence in leaving its truck and trailers upon the highway without a rear warning light. Moran was also guilty of contributory negligence in driving without a view of the highway ahead of him. The duty of so driving as to have assurance of safety ahead is imposed by the law of the road and exacts no higher degree of care than that of the common dictates of prudence. We have repeatedly stated the rule applicable to this case. Holsaple v. Menominee County Sup'ts of Poor, 232 Mich. 603, 206 N. W. 529;Lett v. Summerfield & Hecht, 239 Mich. 699, 214 N. W. 939;Haney v. Troost, 242 Mich. 693, 219 N. W. 594;Wilkins v. Bradford, 247 Mich. 157, 225 N. W. 609;Bielecki v. United Trucking Service, 247 Mich. 661, 226 N. W. 675.

The highway had a row of arc lights in its center, but that did not excuse the failure of defendant truck company to have a rear light. Had there been such a light it is possible that Moran would have seen it before the stranger cut in and prevented all view of the road ahead, but this did not excuse Moran and place the blame wholly upon the defendant truck company, for Moran's...