Riser v. Riser
| Decision Date | 03 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | June Term.,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 240 Mich. 402,215 N.W. 290 |
| Parties | RISER v. RISER et ux. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Saginaw County; Clarence M. Browne, Judge.
Action by Mary F. Riser against Martin L. Riser and wife. Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied, and they bring certiorari. Declaration dismissed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
O'Keefe & O'Keefe, of Saginaw, for appellants.
Weadock & Weadock, of Saginaw, for appellee.
Defendants, Martin L. Riser and Emma J. Riser, his wife, owned a Reo sedan. On January 26, 1926, they invited the plaintiff and her husband, Roy Riser, to accompany them as their guests in their car from Saginaw to Belding. On the return trip that day Roy Riser drove the car, plaintiff riding therein with the defendants. While plaintiff's husband was driving, the car went into the ditch, and plaintiff was injured. She brought suit against said defendants, Martin L. and Emma J. Riser. The declaration sets forth many duties of the defendants toward her while she was riding in the car, but the averment of breach is not quite so extensive. We quote from the declaration:
‘Plaintiff avers that the defendants then and there invited other guests into said automobile and solicited and required Roy Riser, of Saginaw, Mich., the husband of plaintiff, to operate and manage the said automobile, and that the said defendant Martin L. Riser rode in said car, and, instead of operating and carefully directing the said car, he urged and requested the said Roy Riser to drive the same, and neglected and failed to fully advise the said Roy Riser of the peculiar methods of operation required in driving said Reo sedan, well knowing that then and there the roads were slippery with ice and drifted with snow, and that extreme care and caution was required to safely carry said plaintiff over the same.
‘Plaintiff avers that on the course of said journey at a point on a trunk line, known and called trunk line M-4 about 3 1/4 miles south of Ithaca, the said Roy Riser, then and there not being familiar with the operation of the brakes and driving controls of said car, operated the said machine under the direction and authority of the said defendants; that said Roy Riser, driving too rapidly over said trunk line M-14, on account of the condition of the road, had occasion to check the said car by placing his foot on the brake pedal controlling and reducing the speed of the car; that said plaintiff alleges that said defendants and their servants and agents disregarded their said duty and obligation, were not careful in the handling, management, and operation of said car, but upon the contrary Roy Riser, who was put in charge of the driving control of said car for said defendants, negligently and carelessly took his hands from the steering gear of said car while going along at the rate of 25 miles an hour on an icy road for the purpose of lighting a cigarette, and thereby lost control of said car, caused it to swerve, turn, upset, and throw said car and all the persons therein into the ditch, and thereby to injure said plaintiff, that said Roy Riser negligently, carelessly, and without prudent attention to the peculiarities of the said car, placed his foot on the clutch of said car instead of on the brake pedal, and caused the car to skid and slew on the road, so that said car struck an icy portion of the road, and thereupon, and by such negligence of Roy Riser and of the said defendants, the said car was violently, at a high rate of speed, thrown into the ditch at the roadside, and tipped over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Palmer
...Freeza v. Schauer Tool & Die Co., 322 Mich. 293, 33 N.W.2d 799. And in Geib v. Slater, 320 Mich. 316, 31 N.W.2d 65, and Riser v. Riser, 240 Mich. 402, 215 N.W. 290, 291, this Court in discussing this statute quoted language purporting to originate in an Iowa case (Maine v. James Maine & Son......
-
Mosier v. Carney
...of Edward I 405-406 (2d ed. 1899). The third case to present the issue of interspousal tort immunity to this Court was Riser v. Riser (1927), 240 Mich. 402, 215 N.W. 290. Defendants, husband and wife, invited plaintiff and her husband to accompany them in defendants' vehicle on a short auto......
-
Mullally v. Langenberg Bros. Grain Co.
...S.W. 382, 265 Mo. 200; Rice v. Gray, 34 S.W. 567; Faris v. Hope, 298 F. 727; Maine v. Maine & Son, 201 N.W. 20, 198 Iowa 1278; Riser v. Riser, 240 Mich. 402; Emerson Western Seed & I. Co., 216 N.W. 297; Caines v. Mercer, 55 S.W.2d 263; Meece v. Holland Furn. Co., 269 Ill.App. 164; Sacknoff ......
-
Swanigan v. State Farm Ins. Co.
...579 (1978).4 The plurality opinion discussed Geib as follows:"And in Geib v. Slater, 320 Mich. 316, 31 N.W.2d 65, and Riser v. Riser, 240 Mich. 402, 404, 215 N.W. 290 (27 NCCA 518), this Court in discussing this statute quoted language purporting to originate in an Iowa case (Maine v. James......