Nabozny v. Hamil
Decision Date | 01 December 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 31,31 |
Citation | 106 N.W.2d 230,361 Mich. 544 |
Parties | Theodore A. NABOZNY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Robert HAMIL and Betty Hamil, jointly and severally, Defendants and Appellants. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Earl C. Opperthauser, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellee.
Howlett, Hartman & Beier, Pontiac, for defendants and appellants.
Before the Entire Bench.
This Court in recent years 1 has reaffirmed devotion to Mr. Justice Cooley's enduring aphorism that, 'As a general rule, it cannot be doubted that the question of negligence is a question of fact and not of law.' Detroit & Milwaukee R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99, 118. The question of negligence in the case before us comes within that rule, and so I vote to reverse this judgment for plaintiff, same having been entered upon determination by the court that the defendant driver was guilty of actionable negligence.
The stated general rule was considered at length by Mr. Justice Cooley in his timelessly dependable workbook of torts. Quoted as follows, from 3 Cooley on Torts, 4th ed., sec. 481, p. 389, is that portion of the text which gives the author's principal reasons for the the view that the defendant's negligence (as claimed by the plaintiff) is usually a question for the jury:
'If the judge, in such a case, were to pass upon negligence as a question of law, he must, in doing so, be endeavoring to enforce a rule of a variable nature, which must take its final coloring from the experience, training, and temperament of the judge himself; a rule which his predecessors might not have accepted, and which his successor may reject, and upon which a court of review may reverse his action, not because the facts are differently regarded, but because judges are men and men are different.'
True it is that judges 'are different,' and true it has always been that a jury ordinarily is better qualified than one man to judge, upon the presented evidence, whether a want of due care has been shown. Turning (again as in Barron and Thomas, supra) to the first and now memorable instances when the Federal Supreme Court determined that the precepts of Cooley--recorded in Van Steinburg--should be followed in the courts of the United States (Sioux City & Pacific R. Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 84 U.S. 657, 21 L.Ed. 745; Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408, 12 S.Ct. 679, 36 L.Ed. 485), we find complete uniformity of viewpoint that the trial judge has no right to instruct that a party at bar has been shown guilty of negligence unless the judge is able to say that his opinion is also the opinion that all reasonable men would entertain of the question. 2 Stout says (84 U.S. at pages 663, 664):
(Emphasis supplied by the present writer.)
In the case before us, as we shall presently see, the Court is called upon to apply its judgment to the question of want of due care of a motorist while using a modern appliance of motordom, the automatic transmission. Are judges supposed to know more about the proper manner of performing one's common law duty in these circumstances than are jurors? I find direct answer in Ashman v. Flint & P.M. Railroad Co., 90 Mich. 567, 51 N.W. 645. There the question was one of want of care of a railroad switchman whose act of pulling a 'pin,' with knowledge that a nearby 'frog' (in the track) was open and unblocked, resulted in personal injury and suit against his employer. The Court said (90 Mich. at pages 574, 575, 51 N.W. at page 647):
I have examined the testimonial facts, shown in the case before us, with the foregoing rules in mind. Such facts are properly stated, with favor due to the defendant driver, in the brief of her counsel as follows:
To these facts I would add that the collision resulted in serious injury to plaintiff, attested by a damage-verdict and judgment in his favor for $30,000.
Do we have a right to say that Mrs. Hamil's conduct, giving it the most favorable construction it will bear under her testimony 3, was such that all men and women of reasonable minds would conclude that she was negligent? Would not some reasonable men and women disagree upon the answer' Would not the answer of reasonable men and women depend in whole or in part upon the knowledge or want of knowledge they might have of driving modern automobiles; upon their experience or want of experience with a similarly unintentional application of engine power and, generally, upon their own habits of comparative caution or inattention in like circumstances?
Suppose, by way of illustrative hypothesis, that Mrs. Hamil's little 5-year old (remaining temporarily in the car after his mother brought it to a stop at the curb) had suddenly, by accident or childish design, depressed the accelerator with similar tragic result. Would we be as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simerka v. Pridemore, 2
...Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99, and Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall 657, 84 U.S. 657, 21 L.Ed. 745. See Nabozny v. Hamil, 361 Mich. 544, 106 N.W.2d 230 (dissent).1 GCR 1963, 117.2(3).2 C.L.S.1961, § 412.1 (Stat.Ann.1960 Rev. § ...
-
Nass v. Mossner
...that he has made out his case or defense,' appear in Waltanen v. Wiitala, 361 Mich. 504, 513-515, 105 N.W.2d 400 and Nabozny v. Hamil, 361 Mich. 544, 545, 106 N.W.2d 230. If this new factor of transfer of burden to the defendant is to mean anything it should be recognized and applied, not i......
-
Diamond v. Holstein, 58
...the plaintiff burdenbearer. Legal reasons for this last appear over my signature and that of Chief Justice Kavanagh in Nabozny v. Hamil, 361 Mich. 544, 106 N.W.2d 230. Moreover, and quite aside from such legal reasons, the conflicting proof of the separate actions of both drivers, considere......
-
Hardaway v. Consolidated Paper Co.
...not approve the practice of directing verdicts for plaintiffs in negligence cases. For reasons see separate opinions of Nabozny v. Hamil, 361 Mich. 544, 106 N.W.2d 230 and Cooke v. Brown, 365 Mich. 172, 112 N.W.2d 120. Even when proof justifies ruling, as a matter of law, that the party cha......