Nelson v. Linderman
| Decision Date | 09 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 55,56.,s. 55 |
| Citation | 288 Mich. 186,284 N.W. 693 |
| Parties | NELSON v. LINDERMAN (two cases). |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Actions by Joseph Nelson and by Alexandria Nelson against Margaret Linderman for damages resulting from an automobile collision, which actions were consolidated. Defendant's motion for a directed verdict was granted, and plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Arthur Webster, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Alan N. Brown, of Detroit, for appellants.
Woodruff, BeGole & McInerney, of Wyandotte (Baillie & Cary, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.
About the noon hour on November 3, 1936, plaintiffs were driving south on Vining road and at the same time defendant's car was being driven east on Pennsylvania road. Both of these roads are in Wayne county, they intersect and neither is superior to the other. A collision occurred resulting in serious injuries to Alexandria Nelson, and property damage and personal injuries to Joseph Nelson. Plaintiffs brought separate actions which were consolidated when the causes were tried. At the conclusion of plaintiffs' proofs, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict upon the theory that plaintiff driver was guilty of contributory negligence; and that such negligence was imputed to plaintiff Alexandria Nelson.
It is the claim of plaintiffs that on the day in question they were traveling south on Vining road at a rate of speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour; that when plaintiff driver was from 300 to 350 feet from the intersection he noticed defendant's car approaching from the west, but was not able to judge its distance from the intersection; that as Nelson approached to a distance of 125 feet north of the intersection, he noticed that defendant's car was approximately 500 feet west of the intersection; that he then reduced the speed of his car to 8 or 10 miles per hour and approached to within 8 or 10 feet north of the intersection and then observed that defendant's car was about 300 feet west of the intersection and appeared to be slowing up; that he then speeded up his car to 15 or 16 miles per hour and had just crossed the center line of the east and west road when he was struck by defendant's car; that from the time defendant's car was 300 feet west of the intersection, plaintiff did not see it again until the impact; that the distance plaintiff traveled from a point 8 or 10 feet north of the intersection to the point of collision was approximately 25 feet; and that there were no obstacles to obstruct plaintiff's view of defendant's car as it approached the intersection. It alsoappears that at the rate of speed plaintiff was traveling when 8 or 10 feet from the intersection, he could stop his car within a distance of 4 or 5 feet.
The trial court held plaintiff driver's failure to make further observations after reaching a point 8 or 10 feet north of the intersection when he saw another car approaching the same intersection at a distance of 200 feet away constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law. Plaintiff claims that under the facts above related, the question of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krause v. Ryan, s. 30
...Mich. 593, 281 N.W. 336, 337: ('Neither road is superior to the other, there being no stop signs at this intersection'); Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich. 186, 284 N.W. 693: ('Neither is superior to the other'); and Martin v. Department of Street R. of City of Detroit, 314 Mich. 77, 22 N.W.2d ......
-
MacDonald v. Skornia, 41.
...256 Mich. 266, 239 N.W. 314;Block v. Peterson, 284 Mich. 88, 278 N.W. 774;Koehler v. Thom, 285 Mich. 593, 281 N.W. 336;Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich. 186, 284 N.W. 693;Lacaeyse v. Roe, 310 Mich. 591, 17 N.W.2d 765;Martin v. Department of Street Rys. of City of Detroit, 314 Mich. 77, 22 N.W.......
-
Francis v. Rumsey
...collision but also some observation and judgment of its approximate speed. This plaintiff's driver failed to do.' In Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich. 186, 284 N.W. 693, 694, we said: ‘Something more than a fleeting glance at an approaching car is necessary if plaintiff seeks to avoid the burd......
-
Savas v. Beals
...the things which a person in the exercise of ordinary care and caution would see under like circumstances.’ See, also, Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich. 186, 284 N.W. 693;Slingerland v. Snell, 283 Mich. 524, 278 N.W. 672;Zuidema v. Bekkering, 256 Mich. 327, 239 N.W. 333. We are satisfied that ......