Stephens v. Koprowski
| Decision Date | 07 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 23.,23. |
| Citation | 295 Mich. 213,294 N.W. 158 |
| Parties | STEPHENS v. KOPROWSKI. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Cora A. Stephens, administratrix of the estate of Hilda Stephens, deceased, against Charles Koprowski, for death of the deceased which resulted from injuries sustained in an automobile collision. From an adverse judgment the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; Cornelius Hoffius, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Carmody, Geib & Walsh, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Plaintiff, suing as administratrix of the estate of Hilda Stephens, deceased, recovered a judgment for damages arising out of an intersection collision of defendant's automobile and the car in which the deceased was riding as a guest passenger. The sole question here is whether the deceased's host was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, which negligence would bar recovery under the rule of imputed negligence. Carey v. DeRose, 286 Mich. 321, 282 N.W. 165.
The collision occurred at the intersection of Second Street and Lane Avenue in the city of Grand Rapids on the 25th day of February, 1939, at about 11 p. m. The two streets are of equal importance, and there were no stop signs or signal apparatus to control the traffic. Plaintiff's decedent was riding in a friend's car in a northerly direction on Lane Avenue; defendant was driving in an easterly direction on Second Street. The driver of the car in which decedent was riding testified that as he approached the intersection, he was driving about 15 miles per hour and that he maintained a continual watchfulness. Because of an obstructing building on the southwest corner, he did not see defendant's car until he was 20 to 25 feet from the intersection; defendant's car was then about 75 feet from the center of the intersection. The driver further stated that at this point he believed he was far enough up to the intersection to cross with safety before defendant's car would get there, and he accelerated in an attempt to make sure. It appears, or at least for the purposes of this appeal it must be assumed, that he might have been correct if defendant had continued in the same path straight across the intersection. However, defendant started to drive to his left of the center of the street and then turned north as though to follow the other car. When the crossing was half completed, deceased's driver applied the brakes in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the collision. In the northeasterly quadrant of the intersection, defendant struck the left side of the car in which the deceased was riding and thrust it against a telephone pole just beyond the curb; it rebounded and collided again with defendant's car. Decedent, who was thrown out of the car, died in a few days of the injuries thus sustained. The trial court submitted the case to a jury who found for plaintiff. A motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was denied on the ground that deceased's host was not required to assume that defendant would swerve to the left in a northerly direction upon entering the intersection in an apparent effort to avoid a collision.
In reviewing the trial court's decision denying defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, the facts are viewed most favorably to plaintiff. Rogers v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 289 Mich. 397, 286 N.W. 660. The test for our determination is whether the minds of reasonable men can honestly reach different conclusions. Detroit & Milwaukee R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99;Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 272 N.W. 710. It is incumbent on drivers approaching an intersection to use care commensurate with the dangers reasonably to be anticipated. Stuck v. Tice, 291 Mich. 486, 289 N.W. 225;Block v. Peterson, 284 Mich. 88, 278 N.W. 774. Where there is an entire failure to maintain observation for oncoming cars, or if a driver ‘[takes] a chance in the face of known danger’ (McKelvey v. Hill, 259 Mich. 16, 242 N.W. 822, 823), contributory negligence must be concluded as a matter of law. Smith v. Wassink, 262 Mich. 639, 247 N.W. 766;Carey v. DeRose, 286 Mich. 321, 282 N.W. 165;Geisin v. Rebel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacDonald v. Skornia, 41.
...Vukich case nor stressed as such in the Waling case. That leaves the Grodi case, to which might be added the case of Stephens v. Koprowski, 295 Mich. 213, 294 N.W. 158, cited earlier in the CHIEF JUSTICE'S opinion. In both of these cases, as well as in the Waling case, the defendants, after......
-
Buehler v. Beadia
...than of law as in Harris v. Bernstein, 204 Mich. 685, 171 N.W. 521; Grodi v. Mierow, 244 Mich. 511, 221 N.W. 637, and Stephens v. Koprowski, 295 Mich. 213, 294 N.W. 158. On the contrary, the facts in this case bring it within our holding in Lacaeyse v. Roe, 310 Mich. 591, 17 N.W.2d 765, in ......
-
Francis v. Rumsey
...favorable to plaintiff. Saunders v. Joseph, 300 Mich. 479, 2 N.W.2d 471;Shank v. Lucker, 296 Mich. 705, 296 N.W. 852;Stephens v. Koprowski, 295 Mich. 213, 294 N.W. 158. In summary, the testimony shows that plaintiff, when about 54 feet east of the center of the street intersection, observed......
-
Davis v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...whether a verdict should be directed, as declared in the above cases, was approved, and said decisions were cited, in Stephens v. Koprowski, 295 Mich. 213, 294 N.W. 158. In Reedy v. Goodin, 285 Mich. 614, 281 N.W. 377, 379, this Court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff, 'Contributory neg......