Sebastian v. Sherwood

• Decision Date: 05 March 1935
• Docket Number: No. 2.,2.
• Citation: 259 N.W. 287,270 Mich. 339
• Parties: SEBASTIAN v. SHERWOOD (two cases).
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

270 Mich. 339

259 N.W. 287

SEBASTIAN

v.SHERWOOD (two cases).

No. 2.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 5, 1935.

Actions by Fred Sebastian and Marjorie Sebastian, respectively, against George Sherwood. Judgments for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kalamazoo County; George V. weimer, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Harry C. Howard and Wm J. Howard, both of Kalamazoo, for appellant.

Frank F. Ford and Edward J. Ryan, both of Kalamazoo, for appellees.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Mrs. Sebastian was riding with her husband in his car, in a westerly direction on U.S.12, towards the city of Kalamazoo. Sherwood was coming from the west, intending to turn left into Victor road, which intersects, but does not cross, the highway. He pulled up or stopped on the south side of U.S. 12, looked to the east, then to the rear, and without giving any signal turned across the road. He was some distance into the crossing when he heard Sebastian yell and for the first time saw him, not over 50 feet away. In spite of the efforts of the drivers, the automobiles collided, with damage to both cars and their occupants; Mrs. Sebastian being badly injured. The Sebastians brought separate actions against Sherwood, which by stipulation were tried jointly; separate verdicts being rendered. The jury awarded Mrs. Sebastian $6,500 for her injuries and Sebastian recovered $900 for damages to his car and the medical expenses incurred. On a motion for a new trial, the court ordered a remittitur of $400 in the smaller verdict because of a partial failure of proofs. Sherwood took a general appeal from both judgments and assigned error as to a portion of the charge, the admission of certain testimony, and a claimed excessive verdict. The court charged that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law in turning to the left across the highway without giving any signal, and the jury was informed, in substance, that it was a violation of a statutory duty not to signal such intention to the driver of an approaching vehicle. Sherwood had testified on cross-examination: ‘I did not stick my hand out to the left at all. I couldn't see any reason for it.’

We held in McLaughlin v. Curry, 242 Mich. 228, 218 N. W. 698, that the failure of the defendant to extend his arm as required by section 4, Act No. 96, Public Acts of 1923, was negligence per se. The language of the present statute, 1 C. L. 1929, § 4711, which is found in our recent opinion of Lauth v. Woodruff, 265 Mich. 34, 251 N. W. 344, and referred to in Felsenfeld v. Chattaway, 266 Mich. 234, 253 N. W. 280, is somewhat different from that of the 1923 act, which was the one applicable in the McLaughlin Case.

Our attention has not been directed to any authorities as to the applicability of the statute to drivers of cars approaching each other from opposite directions, but the case of Phillips v. Henson, 326 Mo. 282, 30 S.W.(2d) 1065, 1066, seems to be directly in point. The court said: ‘The language of the statute indicates that the signal of intention to turn a motor vehicle to the right or left was intended as a warning to persons approaching from the rear. No doubt it would have been wise to have required a signal or warning to persons approaching from the opposite direction, but, as the Legislature did not see fit to do so, we have...