Slingerland v. Snell
| Decision Date | 04 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 123.,123. |
| Citation | 278 N.W. 672,283 Mich. 524 |
| Parties | SLINGERLAND v. SNELL. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Ellen Z. Slingerland against John Snell for the death of plaintiff's deceased, which resulted from an automobile collision. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed without a new trial.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Guy A. Miller, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Stewart A. Ricard, of Detroit, for appellant.
Hulett & Coash, of Detroit, for appellee.
This case arises out of a collision between two automobiles at the intersection of Marquette and Stanton avenues in the city of Detroit. In circuit court before the trial judge, plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals.
The collision occurred in the afternoon of December 24, 1936. Marquette avenue runs in an easterly and westerly direction and intersects Stanton avenue at right angles. Each street is paved for 26 feet in width. Neither street is superior to the other, there being no stop signs at this intersection. On the afternoon in question, plaintiff's decedent and one Edward Liphardt were each driving an automobile. When they reached Marquette avenue, they drove westerly on this avenue at a speed of about 20 miles per hour for four blocks preceding the intersection where the collision occurred. The deceased maintained a distance of 50 to 60 feet in the rear of the car driven by Edward Liphardt. As they approached the intersection, Edward Liphardt proceeded across safely, but the car that plaintiff's decedent was driving collided with a car driven by defendant proceeding in a northerly direction on Stanton avenue; and as a result of this collision, plaintiff's decedent was injured and died December 27, 1936.
Subsequently, action was brought by the administratrix of the estate of William Slingerland. The cause came on for trial, and, at the close of plaintiff's testimony, the defendant made a motion for judgment of no cause of action which was denied. Later the trial court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff. The principal question presented is the contributory negligence of plaintiff's decedent. From our examination of the record, we conclude that defendant was guilty of negligence, but plaintiff must also show that he was free from contributory negligence before a judgment may be entered in his favor. See Faustman v. Hewitt, 274 Mich. 458, 264 N.W. 863.
In addition to the facts heretofore noted, the record shows that each driver approached the intersection on his proper side of the street and traveling at approximately 20 miles per hour; that the cars collided near the center of the intersection; that the left front end of plaintiff's car sustained greatest damage, while the damage to defendant's car was on its right side; that from measurements taken a person in a car parked 30 feet east of Stanton on Marquette, midway between the center of the street and the north curb, could see a distance of practically 143 feet south of Marquette on Stanton; that at a distance of 40 feet east of Stanton one could see about 100 feet south of Marquette on Stanton; and at a distance of 50 feet east of Stanton one could see a distance of 80 feet south of Stanton.
Assuming that plaintiff's decedent entered the intersection first, we think he was guilty of contributory negligence which bars recovery. It is apparent that when plaintiff's decedent entered the intersection, the defendant was at, or almost to, the intersection without showing any indication of coming to a stop.
In Knight v. Merignac, 281 Mich. 684, 275 N.W. 732, 733, we said: ‘The rule as to one who drives into an intersection without looking and is hit by another car over which he has the right of way was stated in Kerr v. Hayes, 250 Mich. 19, 229 N.W. 430, 431, as follows: ‘These cases, however, also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v. Derose, 36.
...Mich. 267, 271 N.W. 753;DeCoopman v. Hammond, 279 Mich. 619, 273 N.W. 290;Wells v. Oliver, 283 Mich. 168, 277 N.W. 872;Slingerland v. Snell, 283 Mich. 524, 278 N.W. 672. Had Mrs. Carey looked while crossing the intersection it is manifest that she would have seen the approaching car in ampl......
-
Heckler v. Laing
...caution would see under like circumstances.’ Gallagher v. Walter, supra, 299 Mich. page 76, 299 N.W. page 814. In Slingerland v. Snell, 283 Mich. 524, 527, 278 N.W. 672, 673, Mr. Justice Sharpe stated: ‘In the case at bar we do not know what plaintiff's decedent saw, but he could have seen ......
-
Savas v. Beals
...care and caution would see under like circumstances.’ See, also, Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich. 186, 284 N.W. 693;Slingerland v. Snell, 283 Mich. 524, 278 N.W. 672;Zuidema v. Bekkering, 256 Mich. 327, 239 N.W. 333. We are satisfied that had plaintiff exercised reasonable care and caution, h......
-
Consumers Power Co. v. Nash, 10447
...Mich. 458, 264 N.W. 863; Collar v. Maycroft, 274 Mich. 376, 264 N.W. 407; Pulford v. Mouw, 279 Mich. 376, 272 N.W. 713; Slingerland v. Snell, 283 Mich. 524, 278 N.W. 672. In death cases, however, there is a presumption that the decedent was exercising due care, though where there is an eyew......