Myers v. Hinds
| Decision Date | 21 July 1896 |
| Citation | 68 N.W. 156,110 Mich. 300 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | MYERS v. HINDS. |
Error to circuit court, Montcalm county; Frank D. M. Davis, Judge.
Action by Ethel Myers, by her next friend, against Henry H. Hinds. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
A. A Ellis, for appellant.
McGarry & Nichols, for appellee.
GRANT J. (after stating the facts).
We think the court was in error, and that the plaintiff's evidence entitled her to go to the jury. A bicycle is a vehicle. Counsel for the defendant concedes this, and the authorities so hold. Holland v. Bartch, 120 Ind. 46 22 N.E. 83; Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. 450, 20 N.E 132; Taylor v. Goodwin, 4 Q. B. Div. 228. The question, therefore, is: What was the duty of the defendant riding on a vehicle, in passing a pedestrian going in the same direction? His vehicle made no noise, and he gave no signal. Many others were walking in this narrow path. The roadbed for vehicles was open to him. If it be granted that he struck a stone or other obstruction, was the stone or obstruction such that he ought, in the exercise of due care, to have seen it, and avoided the danger? Was it such that the consequence of striking it must have been apparent to him? What efforts did he make to avoid the obstruction, if he saw it? When one passes another, both using bicycles and going in the same direction, it appears to be the rule that the one passing is liable if damage results without misconduct on the part of the one passed. Elliott says: "The only rule of general application that can be laid down is that he who attempts to pass another going in the same direction must do so in such manner as may be most convenient under the circumstances of the case; and, if damage result to the person passed, the former must answer for it, unless the latter, by his own recklessness or carelessness, brought the disaster upon himself." Elliott, Roads & S. 621, 622. See, also, Ang. Highw. � 340; Knowles v. Crampton, 55 Conn. 336, 11 A. 593. We think the court was in error in holding that the collision was caused by defendant's running over an obstacle. As already shown, the only testimony upon this point was the statement of defendant, made just after the accident, and the testimony of one witness that she thought he struck something; but she based this thought only upon the noise she heard. His own statement, made after the accident, is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Inhabitants of Town of Danvers
... ... on the highway, and is subject to the law of the road ... State v. Collins, 16 R.I. 371, 17 A. 131, 3 L. R. A ... 394; Myers v. Hinds, 110 Mich. 300, 68 N.W. 156, 33 ... L. R. A. 356; Taylor v. Traction Co., 184 Pa. St ... 465, 40 A. 159; Thompson v. Dodge, 58 Minn. 555, ... ...
-
Vercruysse v. Ulaga, 57.
...are sufficiently discussed in the Niedzinski Case, supra, and need not be discussed here. See, also, Myers v. Hinds, 110 Mich. 300, 68 N. W. 156,33 L. R. A. 356, 64 Am. St. Rep. 345. The trial judge read to the jury pertinent excerpts from the Niedzinski Case. We are not impressed that this......
-
Blasdell v. Wooley
...time. It does not appear that parking vehicles in the street was forbidden. The bicycle is a vehicle. Myers v. Hinds, 110 Mich. 300, 68 N. W. 156,33 L. R. A. 356, 64 Am. St. Rep. 345; 4 Words and Phrases, Second Series, 1146; 8 Words and Phrases, First Series, 7284. On the case as presented......
- In re King's Estate