Morgan v. Tourangeau, 28.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 28.,28. |
| Parties | MORGAN v. TOURANGEAU. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houghton County; John G. Stone, Judge.
Action by Bessie Morgan against Addie Tourangeau. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Full Bench.
Edward F. Le Gendre, of Laurium, for appellant.
Charles M. Humphrey, of Ironwood, and Galbraith & McCormack, of Calumet, for appellee.
Plaintiff seeks review by appeal from a judgment entered on a directed verdict for the defendant, based on the opening statement of plaintiff's counsel to the jury. The facts therein stated may be summarized as follows:
The parties lived in adjoining homes in the village of Laurium, and had been friends for many years. On September 26, 1930, the defendant invited the plaintiff to accompany her on a trip she intended taking to Green Bay, and the invitation was accepted. They left their homes that afternoon to make some purchases, and, on the suggestion of defendant that she should fill up her gas tank, plaintiff offered and was permitted to pay for the gasoline which was put therein. The next morning they left for Green Bay in defendant's car, which she was driving. Before leaving, they agreed that each should watch on her side of the car for railroad crossings. At Amasa they secured more gasoline, which was also paid for by the plaintiff. When a few miles beyond Amasa, they approached a railroad crossing. The plaintiff saw the track, looked, and saw no train approaching from her side. Whe noticed that defendant was not slackening the speed at which she had been driving, 30 to 35 miles per hour, and, on looking to the left, she saw a train about 100 to 150 feet away approaching the crossing. The car in which they were riding was then from 50 to 60 feet from the crossing. She screamed to the defendant, ‘My God, there's a train,’ but defendant made no effort to stop the car, apparently trying to cross ahead of the train, and a collision occurred, in which they were both quite seriously injured.
It seems clear that under the facts as stated the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. She was a gratuitous passenger, and, under Act No. 19, Pub. Acts 1929 (1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 4648), it must appear that the ‘gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct’ of the defendant caused or contributed to her injury.
It is plaintiff's claim that, as defendant's attention was called to the approaching train when her car was from 50 to 60 feet from the crossing, she could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have stopped her car and avoided the collision. But, as stated by counsel, the defendant apparently believed that she could cross ahead of the train.
Drivers of automobiles frequently find themselves in positions of apparent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Hutchinson
...supra; Master v. Horowitz, 237 A.D. 237, 261 N.Y.S. 722; affirmed Master v. Horowitz, 262 N.Y. 609, 188 N.E. 86; Morgan v. Tourangeau, 259 Mich. 598, 244 N.W. 173; Guiney v. Osborn, 295 Mich. 559, 295 N.W. Bushouse v. Brom, 297 Mich. 616, 298 N.W. 303; Eubanks v. Kielsmeier, 171 Wash. 484, ......
-
Smith v. Clute
...P. 304, 62 A.L.R. 436;Lloyd v. Mowery, 158 Wash. 341, 290 P. 710. Contra, McCann v. Hoffman, 9 Cal.2d 279, 70 P.2d 909;Morgan v. Tourangeau, 259 Mich. 598, 244 N.W. 173. As Mr. Justice Stern of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed out, ‘Had plaintiffs not made their agreement to share the......
-
Bushouse v. Brom
...Plaintiff was not a gratuitous guest and defendant's negligence was sufficient to create liability. Defendant relies on Morgan v. Tourangeau, 259 Mich. 598, 244 N.W. 173, but in that case there was no agreement in advance relative to the sharing of expenses. We do not intend in holding as w......
-
Johnson v. Firemont Canning Co.
...judgment might have dictated that she attempt to stop before reaching crossing (1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 4648).’ Syllabus, Morgan v. Tourangeau, 259 Mich. 598, 244 N. W. 173. ‘Failure to see railroad track and train in time to stop automobile and avoid accident was at most ordinary negligence i......