Perkins v. Roberts, 31.
| Decision Date | 09 September 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 31.,31. |
| Citation | 272 Mich. 545,262 N.W. 305 |
| Parties | PERKINS v. ROBERTS et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Vina Perkins, guardian of the estate of Maxine Perkins, a minor, against George Roberts and Lewis R. Du Roy. From a judgment for the plaintiff against Lewis R. Du Roy, he appeals.
Reversed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Eaton County; Russell R. McPeek, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Kelley, Sessions, Warner & Eger, of Lansing, for appellant.
C. B. Fisk Bangs, of Charlotte, for appellee.
Upon trial before the court, without a jury, defendant Lewis R. Du Roy, hereinafter called defendant, was found guilty of wanton and willful misconduct, in that, while driving his automobile with Maxine Perkins as his guest, he fell asleep, drove on the wrong side of the highway and into collision with an approaching car, and for this, under the guest act (Comp. Laws 1929, § 4648), he was cast in damages to his guest who was injured.
The parties were keeping company and July 14, 1932, drove from Charlotte to Lansing to visit friends and upon the return trip at about 1 o'clock the next morning, Miss Perkins fell asleep, and shortly after they left Lansing defendant felt drowsy, stopped his car, got out and walked about, smoked a cigarette, and feeling refreshed got into his car and continued driving, and, he claims, he fell asleep without warning, awakened to find his car on the left side of the highway and another car approaching with which he came into collision. Miss Perkins being asleep knew nothing about the cause of the accident.
Plaintiff called defendant as a witness. His evidence disclosed that, when first drowsy, he heeded the warning, stopped his car, and took measures to refresh himself, then resumed his driving, and was suddenly and without warning overcome by sleep.
A driver overcome by sleep is not guilty of wanton or willful misconduct unless it appears that he continued to drive in reckless disregard of premonitory symptoms.
Defendant was guilty of negligence, Devlin v. Morse, 254 Mich. 113, 235 N. W. 812, but not guilty of wanton and willful misconduct. Boos v. Sauer, 266 Mich. 230, 253 N. W. 278.
The guest statute provides: ‘That no person, transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as his guest without payment for such transportation shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury, death or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riley v. Walters
...253 N.W. 278;Johnson v. Fremont Canning Co., 270 Mich. 524, 259 N.W. 660;Sherman v. Yarger, 272 Mich. 644, 262 N.W. 318;Perkins v. Roberts, 272 Mich. 545, 262 N.W. 305;Crowley v. Upleger, 273 Mich. 541, 263 N.W. 737, and many other cases. In Denman v. Johnston, 85 Mich. 387, 48 N.W. 565, 56......
-
Lankford v. Mong
...conscious of drowsiness, heeded the warning, refreshed himself and then resumed driving, it was held, in effect, in Perkins v. Roberts, 272 Mich. 545, 262 N.W. 305, that a jury question was not presented as to whether he was guilty of wantonness if, after resumption of driving, he was sudde......
-
Harper v. Harper
...563; Marks v. Marks, 308 Ill.App. 276, 31 N.E.2d 399; Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. Self, 20 Tenn.App. 498, 101 S.W.2d 132; Perkins v. roberts, 272 Mich. 545, 262 N.W. 305; Wismer v. Marx, 289 Mich. 38, 286 N.W. Koufman v. Feinberg, 298 Mass. 270, 10 N.E.2d 91. There is no variance between the......
-
Wright's Estate v. Pizel
...109; Srajer v. Schwartzman, 164 Kan. 241, 247, 188 P.2d 971. Our case has been cited and approved upon this point in Perkins v. Roberts, 272 Mich. 545, 262 N.W. 305; Melby v. Anderson, 64 S.D. 249, 266 N.W. 135, 137; Gallegher v. Davis, 7 Harr. 380, 37 Del. 380, 183 A. 620, 622, and in Stev......