Schnepf v. Andrews, 12
| Citation | 333 Mich. 509,53 N.W.2d 355 |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 12,12 |
| Parties | SCHNEPF v. ANDREWS et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Paul W. Harty, Detroit, for appellant.
Snider & Feikens, Detroit, for appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
Plaintiff brought action against the defendants for negligent acts of instructor employed by defendants in giving plaintiff a lesson in dancing the dance known as 'jitterbug.' The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff. On motion of defendants, the court rendered judgment for defendants notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff appeals.
The business of defendants was to give instruction at their studio in six dances known as rumba, samba, fox trot, waltz, jitterbug and tango. On November 24, 1948, plaintiff contracted with defendants to take certain dancing lessons. She had seen and known something of the dance called jitterbug and expressed to defendants' instructor, Mr. Hartshorne (called however, Mr. Hart), her fear of the jitterbug dance as being too violent and that she could not 'take it.' Plaintiff was then 52 years of age. She testified that after an argument of several minutes she was persuaded by Mr. Hart to practice jitterbugging. Plaintiff had had several lessons in dancing, but did not begin her instruction in the jitterbug dance as part of her earlier lessons. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Hart told plaintiff respecting the jitterbug dance, 'There is nothing to it,' and that Mr. Hart promised her that he would hang onto her hand, and that Mr. Hart did hang onto her hand for once and on the second occasion, when they came to the critical part of the dance called the spin-turn, he let loose of her hand and that she staggered back, lost her balance and fell against the wall, that her feet went out from under her and she received an injury to her wrist fracturing some bones in her wrist. Plaintiff also testified that after she had started on the second occasion, and while Mr. Hart was still holding her hand and about to release his hold, he gave her a push. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the push into the spin turn was too hard a push and the release, contrary to his promise, by Hart of his hold on her hand at the inception or in the midst of the spin-turn, was negligence. Plaintiff claims that the release of hold of her hand and the excessive push both contributed to cause her injury, and that her injury was due to the negligence of Hart in giving the lesson.
Plaintiff testified that after she was injured, she heard Mr. Hart say to a Mr. Edward Smegalski that he, Hart, pushed her 'a little too hard.'
Defendants deny that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Felgner v. Anderson
......* * * . [375 Mich. 28] 'Q. Now, Mr. Anderson, are you positive that your 12-gauge Winchester pump shotgun did not discharge a second ond time and strike Louis Felgner in the .... Schnepf v. Andrews, 333 Mich. 509, 53 N.W.2d 355, presents another unusual use of the language of ......
-
Carey v. Toles
...The plaintiffs' attorney in his initial efforts to get the assumption of risk theory removed from the case, cited Schnepf v. Andrews (1952), 333 Mich. 509, 53 N.W.2d 355, wherein the plaintiff received judgment on a jury verdict for injuries which she claimed resulted from the negligent act......
- Russ v. City of Detroit, Dept. of St. Rys., 7