Stuck v. Tice

• Decision Date: 19 December 1939
• Docket Number: No. 30.,30.
• Citation: 291 Mich. 486,289 N.W. 225
• Parties: STUCK v. TICE et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

291 Mich. 486

289 N.W. 225

STUCK

v.TICE et al.

No. 30.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 19, 1939.

Action by William Stuck against Earl Tice and another, for damages resulting from automobile collision. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kalkaska County; Fred S. Lamb, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Robert B. Murchie, of Traverse City, for appellants.

Campbell & Campbell and Rupert B. Stephens, all of Manistee, for appellee.

BUTZEL, Chief Justice.

An intersection accident occurred on a road leading into Kalkaska, Michigan, between 9 and 10 o'clock on the morning of September 6, 1938. Plaintiff was riding with his brother Mark in a Ford car in a northerly direction on graveled county road No. 571. Defendant Tice was driving east in a Ford stake-body truck owned by himself and defendant Ball on a dirt road which crossed No. 571 at right angles, and began a quarter of a mile to the west at a farm house. The dirt road was sufficiently wide for two cars, though there evidently was only one ‘track’ on it. The dirt road continues east after it crosses No. 571, and becomes a graveled road. The trial judge instructed the jury that the two roads were virtually of equal importance. The sky was clear on the day the accident occurred, the surrounding countryside was level and the view of both drivers unobstructed. Defendants claim that a verdict should have been directed in their favor instead of allowing the case to go to the jury which rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether plaintiff's driver was guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law.

It was shown on behalf of plaintiff that the car in which he was riding was traveling at a speed of about 30 miles an hour as it approached to within six or seven rods south of the intersection, at which point the driver first saw defendants' truck about 10 rods west of the intersection. It was estimated by one witness that defendant Tice was then driving 50 or 55 miles an hour; plaintiff's brother who drove the car stated that he formed no estimate of Tice's speed but that he continued to watch the truck steadily from the moment he first saw it until the impact. As it approached the intersection, according to several witnesses, the truck appeared to slow down either for the purpose of stopping or of making a right-hand turn, and for this reason the driver of plaintiff's car proceeded across the intersection without relaxing his speed. Defendant, however, after slowing down, picked up speed again and the vehicles collided after plaintiff's car had crossed the southerly half of the intersection by six or eight feet. It was further shown that from the position of the car at the time of the impact defendant was on the left or north side of the road. Plaintiff claims that the front part of the truck struck his car behind the left front fender. There was evidence that immediately after the accident defendant Tice stated that he did not see the car at all and that he had been checking the bill for his next milk delivery rather than watching the road.

Defendant admitted that he ‘didn't look quick enough,’ but denied that he had stated he was not paying attention to driving his car. He estimated that he was driving 25 to 30 miles per hour as he approached the intersection and denied that he had...