Skaug v. Knappins

• Decision Date: 01 December 1927
• Docket Number: No. 15.,15.
• Citation: 241 Mich. 57,216 N.W. 403
• Parties: SKAUG v. KNAPPINS et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

241 Mich. 57

216 N.W. 403

SKAUG

v.KNAPPINS et al.

No. 15.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 1, 1927.

Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Major L. Dunham, Judge.

Action by John Skaug, administrator of the estate of Marvyle Skaug, deceased, against Arley Knappins and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before SHARPE, C. J., and BIRD, FLANNIGAN, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ. J. T. & T. F. McAllister and Clare J. Hall, all of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Biship & Weaver, of Detroit, for appellees.

SHARPE, C. J.

Between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning of September 8, 1925, the defendant Knappins was driving a truck with a two-wheel trailer attached at the rear, belonging to the other defendants, from Detroit to Grand Rapids. When about 10 miles west of Portland, an Oakland touring car, then being driven by Arthur G. Henderson, crashed into the rear end of the trailer. Marvyle Skaug, who was sitting in the front seat of the car with Henderson, received injuries due to the collision which resulted in her death a few hours thereafter. Plaintiff, as administrator of her estate, brings this action to recover the damages due thereto. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants beecause of the negligence of the driver of the car. Plaintiff reviews the judgment entered thereon by writ of error.

[1] The testimony of the witnesses and the inferences which may fairly be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to support plaintiff's right of recovery. Henderson, the driver of the car, testified: ‘It was a dark night, no moon, but it was not raining. The weather was clear’; that on the car ‘were two headlights burning bright’ and a spotlight ‘placed on the righthand side so that it might show the righthand side and the ditch’; that he was proceeding on a down grade, and ‘When I got part way down I saw a truck come in from the left-hand side and turn in to my track, and I applied my brakes'; that he was traveling ‘right in the right-hand track, and that is within two or three feet of the edge of the road’; that the speed of the car was about 25 miles an hour; that it was equipped with four-wheel brakes, which would stop the car when so traveling within 50 feet; that ‘on the left-hand side there is a very deep ditch and the land on the left-hand side is much lower than the road, and on the righthand side is a deep ditch and high embankment’; that he first saw the trailer when within 30 feet of it; that he then applied the brakes, but could not stop in time to avoid the collision; that he was familiar with the road, and knew that it was crossed by a highway about 75 feet from where the accident occurred. We quote from his testimony:

‘Q. Now, how far ahead of your car did your lights illuminate the highway? A. Over 200 feet.

‘Q. And did they illuminate the entire highway, or only just some portion of it? A. Just in front of my car.

‘Q. You did not have the required lights on your car, did you? A. Yes.

‘Q. You did not have lights on your car that would illuminate a space in the roadway 200 feet ahead of you that would be 22 feet in width? A. No.

‘Q. How wide was the space in width that your lights would illuminate the roadway at 200 feet? A. About 6 feet.

‘Q. Now, at any point within 200 feet and the front portion of your car, would the lights illuminate any greater width in the highway than 6 feet? A. Yes; on the right-hand side.

‘Q. That is on account of the spotlight? A. Yes.

‘Q. Your headlights at no point within 200 feet or over 200 feet, or at any point in the roadway ahead, would illuminate a width of more than 6 feet? A. Possibly 4 or 5 feet in front of the car, might throw a slight ray on each side, reflection might.

‘Q. You didn't misunderstand my question in any way, did you? A. No.’

It is undisputed that the roadbed at the point of collision was 24 feet wide. Of this 16 feet had been graveled, leaving what is called a ‘shoulder’ an each side 4 feet in width. There is proof that by use the gravel had spread over the shoulder to some extent.

Marvel J. Church, a farmer living near the scene of the accident, reached there soon thereafter. He described the condition of the car and truck, and said...