Raby v. Dodge

• Decision Date: 21 May 1937
• Docket Number: No. 70.,70.
• Citation: Raby v. Dodge, 279 Mich. 626, 273 N.W. 293 (Mich. 1937)
• Parties: RABY v. DODGE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

279 Mich. 626

273 N.W. 293

RABY

v.DODGE.

No. 70.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 21, 1937.

Action by Hazel Raby against S. L. Dodge.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed without a new trial.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Charlevoix County; Parm C. gilbert, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Kelley, Sessions, Warner & Eger, of Lansing, for appellant.

Rollie L. Lewis, of Charlevoix, for appellee.

BUTZEL, Justice.

Defendant and other guest passengers of defendant were returning on M-66 to their homes in Charlevoix from the county fair at East Jordan.There had been a slight drizzle during the entire day.Defendant and his party drove in a northerly direction and had passed over a rise or hill about 800 feet from the southerly point when his car collided with a car driven by one Dan McSawby, who was coming from the opposite direction.From the bottom of this hill, defendant had an unobstructed view for a distance of 1,320 feet to the top of the Hanson hill, which was 520 feet north of the point of collision.

Defendant was driving at the rate of from 30 to 35 miles an hour when McSawby passed over the top of the Hanson hill.It was about 6 o'clock in the afternoon; vision was good and the hill was not steep.When defendant was about 100 feet from the McSawby car, his car suddenly started to cross over to McSawby's right side of the road, and a collision resulted, injuring plaintiff seriously.The testimony shows that there was a clay top-dressing on the road, but as plaintiff's witness states, he could not say that ‘it was terribly slippery right there.It seemed to be more of a wash-like, there; it showed quite a little sand on there.I wouldn't say it was soft; it seemed to be a fairly good road, about the same, maybe, on both sides; I don't know.’

Defendant's car was in good condition with proper brakes.Defendant said that he simply could not explain how the accident happened; that he had been going straight when suddenly his car swerved, but what caused it he did not know.

Unless there was wanton and willful misconduct on the part of defendant, plaintiff cannot recover as a guest passenger.The accident appears to have been caused through defendant's negligence, but whether he took his mind off the road for a moment, whether the car skidded on account of the clay, or just what caused the car to swerve, is not explained.The McSawby car was approaching at about 30 to 35 miles an hour, and considering that defendant's...