Neesley v. Lord
| Decision Date | 08 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 34.,34. |
| Citation | 297 N.W. 226,297 Mich. 163 |
| Parties | NEESLEY v. LORD. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Winifred Neesley against Agnes Lord for injuries received when struck by defendant's automobile, wherein a verdict for $3,500 was returned for plaintiff. From a judgment non obstante veredicto for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment non obstante veredicto reversed, and cause remanded for entry of judgment on verdict.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Guy A. Miller, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Mason, Davidson & Mansfield, of Detroit (Carl F. Davidson and Henry T. Gage, both of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Howard D. Brown, of Detroit (Paul R. Erickson, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.
About 6 p.m. on May 19, 1939, plaintiff, a middle-aged woman, was walking toward the west on the south side of West Grand Boulevard in the city of Detroit. Third Avenue runs north and south and was used at that time for traffic in each direction. While attempting to cross Third Avenue, plaintiff was struck by defendant's car. She suffered serious injuries for which the jury in the lower court awarded her $3,500. The court granted a motion to set aside the jury's verdict and entered a judgment non obstante veredicto for defendant. The main question presented on appeal is whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In our review of the case, we shall set forth the testimony in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
Immediately prior to the accident, defendant's car had come to a standstill a short distance from the east curb of Third Avenue, and two or three feet back of the southerly crosswalk of West Grand Boulevard, if extended across the street. Defendant was waiting for the traffic light to change to permit her to continue across West Grand Boulevard. Another car had stopped at the left of defendant's car, and a truck, headed south, also had come to a standstill at an island in the center of the Boulevard, both waiting for a favorable light in order to proceed. Plaintiff testified that she walked to the curb and saw the two automobiles waiting for the light, which was in her favor. As she stepped from the curb, she looked to the right at the traffic light on the northeast corner of the intersection. An officer of the Detroit Police Department, who was in charge of the electrical division, stated that the traffic light directly west and across from the curb at which plaintiff stood was pointed in a northeasterly direction so as to act as a supplemental signal for westbound vehicles on the boulevard, and that a long tubing over the light made it very difficult, if not impossible, for pedestrians, situated as plaintiff was, to see the light. He also testified that the lights change every thirty and one-half seconds and that there is an additional amber light which appears for six seconds prior to the light changing from red to green and vice versa. It was shown, however, that the day the accident occurred, it was dark and that in such weather the color of the light is reflectedon the tubing. The light, however, that was plainly visible and to which plaintiff looked was on the northeast corner of the intersection. She testified that it was red for north and south traffic and thereupon she stepped off the curb into the street. After she took two or three steps, she heard the commotion of motors starting, and then she started to run. Plaintiff imagined that she was at least in front of defendant's car at this moment. As she looked to her left she saw that defendant's car was in motion and coming toward her. She ran west and north in her endeavor to reach the other side of the street and avoid being struck. On cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know exactly where she was when the car started; she, however, reasserted that the light was red for the north and south traffic when she stepped from the curb.
The driver of the truck waiting in the center of West Grand Boulevard for the light to change noticed plaintiff step off the curb and the light change to amber at the same time. He testified that when defendant's car started up, plaintiff was in front of its right front fender. When plaintiff saw defendant's car coming toward her, she ran at an angle toward the truck, and neither the automobile alongside of defendant's car nor the truck had started up at the time the accident occurred. The left front fender and bumper of defendant's car struck plaintiff. Defendant's motion for a directed verdict was denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alley v. Klotz
...issue of fact for the jury. It was for the jury to say what weight shall be given to his testimony as a whole.’ And in Neesley v. Lord, 297 Mich. 163, 297 N.W. 226, 227, it was said: ‘We have repeatedly held that if the testimony of a witness on direct examination conflicts with that on cro......
-
Wilson v. City of Detroit
...matter of law. In reviewing the trial judge's action we must view the testimony in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Neesley v. Lord, 297 Mich. 163, 297 N.W. 226;Burnash v. Compton, 298 Mich. 70, 298 N.W. 408. Immediately prior to the accident, plaintiff was on Warren Avenue west of Wo......
-
Boyd v. Maruski
...in point. In support of her position plaintiff also urges our decisions in Moore v. Noorthoek, 280 Mich. 431, 273 N.W. 758;Neesley v. Lord, 297 Mich. 163, 297 N.W. 226; and Werker v. McGrain, 315 Mich. 287, 24 N.W.2d 111, 112. But in each of these cases there was testimony tending to sustai......
-
Cooch's Estate, In re
...made by any witness, and determine which statements, if either, were correct.' Justice Carr then went on to cite Neesley v. Lord, 297 Mich. 163, 297 N.W. 226, to the same effect. See, also, Wilson v. City of Detroit, 299 Mich. 473, 300 N.W. There is some testimony that Mrs. Cooch tore up a ......