Quinlan v. Wells

• Citation: 289 N.W. 135,291 Mich. 214
• Decision Date: 19 December 1939
• Docket Number: No. 58.,58.
• Parties: QUINLAN v. WELLS.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

291 Mich. 214

289 N.W. 135

QUINLAN

v.WELLS.

No. 58.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 19, 1939.

Action by William Quinlan against Louis Wells to recover damages to plaintiff's two daughters, guests of defendant. The trial court on motion directed a verdict for defendant, and from the judgment entered on the verdict, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; William Robertson, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Miles K. Benedict, of Port Huron, for appellant.

Stewart & Black, of Port Huron William C. Searl, of Lansing, of counsel), for appellee.

POTTER, Justice.

Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages resulting to his two daughters, guest passengers of defendant who plaintiff claims was guilty of gross negligence and wanton and wilful misconduct.

The facts pleaded upon which plaintiff relies are that defendant drove his automobile at an unsafe and imprudent speed, unreasonable and improper having regard to the surface of the highway, traffic and atmospheric conditions then existing, contrary to the provisions of 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 4697 (Stat.Ann. § 9.1565), as amended by Act No. 119, Pub.Acts 1933, by operating the motor vehicle in such manner and at such speed as to make it impossible for him to bring his automobile to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead, and by driving the same while blinded by a snowstorm and with insufficient vision ahead at a high and dangerous speed under the conditions then existing, in consequence of which defendant's guests were injured.

Defendant by way of answer sets up that the collision mentioned in plaintiff's declaration was without fault or negligenceon his part; that he ran into a truck, the tail light of which he claims was obscured by a sander attached to the rear thereof, which was backing toward defendant's automobile. Defendant made a motion for a directed verdict upon the pleadings upon the ground plaintiff's declaration failed to state a cause of action and that plaintiff, as parent of the two girls, had no right of action in any event against defendant for the reason such common-law cause of action was abolished by the Michigan guest passenger act. 1 Comp.Laws 1929, § 4648 (Stat.Ann. § 9.1446).

The trial court, on motion, directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff contends his declaration sets forth a cause of action under the guest passenger act, citing Manser v. Eder, 263 Mich. 107, 248 N.W. 563;Goss v. Overton, 266 Mich. 62, 253 N.W. 217;Schlacter v. Harbin, 273 Mich. 465, 263 N.W. 431. Defendant contends that to constitute a charge of gross negligence or wanton and wilful misconduct the declaration must plead facts lifting the owner's faults above ordinary negligence, and that unless the declaration does state facts to show wilful and wanton misconduct or gross negligence no recovery may be had. Naudzius v. Lahr, 253 Mich. 216, 234 N.W. 581, 74 A.L.R. 1189. Defendant contends the pleadings herein do not set forth a basis of recovery. Grabowski v. Seyler, 261 Mich. 473, 246 N.W. 189;Pawlicki v. Faulkerson, 285 Mich. 141, 280 N.W. 141.

The proximate cause of the accident was defendant's failure to see the truck. There can be no doubt about this. Defendant claims the tail light, if there was one, on the truck was obscured. In Van Blaircum v. Campbell, 256 Mich. 527, 239 N.W. 865, it was said: ‘The proximate cause of the accident was defendant's failure to see the trailer....