Prentkiewicz v. Karp

• Decision Date: 10 May 1965
• Docket Number: 62,Nos. 61,s. 61
• Citation: Prentkiewicz v. Karp, 134 N.W.2d 717, 375 Mich. 367 (Mich. 1965)
• Parties: Sandra PRENTKIEWICZ, a minor, by Leona Pearo, her parent and next friend, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Josephine M. KARP and Marlene Parks, Defendants and Appellants. Sandra PRENTKIEWICZ, a minor, by Leona Pearo, her parent and next friend, Joseph M. Prent and State of Michigan, a public corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Josephine M. KARP and Marlene Parks, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 717

134 N.W.2d 717

375 Mich. 367

Sandra PRENTKIEWICZ, a minor, by Leona Pearo, her parent andnext friend, Plaintiff and Appellee, v.Josephine M. KARP and Marlene Parks, Defendants and Appellants.

Sandra PRENTKIEWICZ, a minor, by Leona Pearo, her parent and

next friend, Joseph M. Prent and State of

Michigan, a public corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v.Josephine M. KARP and Marlene Parks, Defendants and Appellants.

Nos. 61, 62.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 10, 1965.

Scholten and Fant, by Harvey L. Scholten, Grand Haven, for defendant, Josephine M. Karp; Charles A. Larnard, Jr., Muskegon, of counsel.

Landman, Grimm, Bradbury & Laurin, by V. S. Laurin, Muskegon, for defendant, Marlene Parks.

James J. Kobza, Muskegon, for plaintiffs.

Before the Entire Bench.

KAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

On February 15, 1961, Sandra Prentkiewicz, a minor, instituted suit in the circuit court for the county of Muskegon, by her next friend, to recover for damages sustained while riding as a passenger in an automobile owned by defendantJosephine M. Karp and operated by defendantMarlene Parks.A companion case was also instituted by the parents of the minor to recover for medical expenses annd the same was consolidated with the minor's case on trial.

Plaintiff sought recovery under the statute¹ on the theory of gross negligence on the part of Marlene Parks, driver of the vehicle on the day of the accident, June 26, 1959.The following facts are material to the decision in this case:

Josephine Karp, owner of the car here involved, allowed her son Michael Karp, who was home from the service, the use and control of her car.He, together with two other boys and two girls, plaintiffSandra Prentkiewicz and defendantMarlene Parks, gathered at Sandra's home.Some beer was consumed and they decided to get some more.Two of the boys did not have a driver's license.Marlene and Sandra were instructed by Michael to take the other two boys to get the beer, as they appeared to be the only ones who would be able to buy it; all were under the age of 21.Both girls argued over who was to drive.Plaintiff Sandra drove to a store in Muskegon, where the boys purchased a case of beer and put it in the trunk of the car.Marlene Parks insisted on driving back.She had previously driven Michael's car, although she did not have a driver's license, and claimed to have been experienced in driving this car, once driving it for 20 miles at speeds up to 115 miles per hour.

After leaving the store where they purchased the beer, Marlene accelerated the car to 40 or 45 miles per hour on Getty street in the city of Muskegon and to approximately 60 miles per hour on Marquette street.She was asked to slow down by plaintiff, and did so.As the car approached Sheridan drive she made a stop and the car ahead started fast and threw some gravel and stones against the car defendant was driving.At this point Marlene made a remark which was testified to as calling the driver an 'idiot.'She was disturbed and excited about the actions of the driver of the car ahead, who had squealed his wheels as he pulled away from the stop.She stated she wanted to make or hear her own wheels squeal;that she liked to hear car wheels squeal; and wondered whether she could make them squeal on the turn she was about to make.She rounded the corner very fast, hit some gravel, ran off to the right side of the road, then all over the road, crashing off a telephone pole, knocking down a speed sign, and then ran off the road and collided with a tree, wrapping the car around the tree and severely injuring plaintiff, who was a passenger in the front seat with her.DefendantMarlene Parks claims not to remember anything after starting to make the turn.

Defendants claim Marlene was an inexperienced driver, and froze, panicked, and pressed her foot on the accelerator rather than the brake.Defendants also claim it was 282 feet from the center of the intersection of Marquette and Sheridan to the point of impact; and that the car after it left the road continued on a straight line to the tree which it struck, and that defendant driver could have turned to the right or left just a few feet and missed the tree, but because of her inexperience she continued to depress the accelerator rather than the brake, so that the car was propelled ahead instead of being stopped.

Defendants contend that as a matter of law defendant driver Parks was not guilty of gross negligence in her driving and that the injuries suffered by plaintiff were not the proximate result of any wilful or wanton misconduct on the part of defendant driver, and that plaintiff assumed the risk when she rode with an untrained and inexperienced driver.

On the other hand, plaintiff contends there were facts from which the jury might have found gross negligence under the circumstances, and the trial court so found and submitted the question to the jury.The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor.

Defendants moved for a judgment non obstante verdicto, which was denied by the trial court without opinion.Defendants appeal from the denial of the motion and the judgment.

Defendants claim the facts in this case do not constitute gross negligence as defined by this Court on the basis that there was no persistency, no continuation which would...