Szymborski v. Slatina
Decision Date | 21 December 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 22,22 |
Citation | 192 N.W.2d 213,386 Mich. 339 |
Parties | Rosella V. SZYMBORSKI and Joseph Szymborski, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Philip J. SLATINA and Main Sand & Gravel Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Sanford N. Lakin, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Sugar, Schwartz, Silver, Schwartz & Tyler, by David M. Tyler, Detroit, for defendants-appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
This rear-end collision case resulted in a jury verdict of no cause for action.
Motion for new trial was made alleging that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence; that the court erred in its charge to the jury by failing to instruct them that the statutory presumption of negligence arising from a rear-end collision could only be overcome by clear, positive and credible evidence, and by failing to instruct the jury that the defendant had the burden of proof upon the question of 'sudden emergency.'
The motion for new trial was denied and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 26 Mich.App. 538, 182 N.W.2d 723.
We agree. The Court of Appeals correctly disposed of the two issues as follows:
On the statutory presumption:
On sudden emergency:
(Emphasis supplied.) Since the 'sudden emergency' rule is not an affirmative defense, it was not incumbent upon the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an emergency existed nor was it error for the judge to refuse to so charge.'
Affirmed. Costs to appellees.
I concur with my Brother Brennan and believe the Court of Appeals should be affirmed. However, I think it would be useful for the bench and bar to have the pertinent part of the charges given by the trial court on record. The pertinent part is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Price v. Austin
...acted as a "reasonably prudent person would have done under all the circumstances of the accident ...." Szymborski v. Slatina , 386 Mich. 339, 341, 192 N.W.2d 213 (1971) (quotation marks and citations omitted; see also Moning v. Alfono , 400 Mich. 425, 435-436, 254 N.W.2d 759 (1977) ).We do......
-
White v. Taylor Distributing Co.
...748 (1962), and Garrigan v. LaSalle Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 362 Mich. 262, 263, 106 N.W.2d 807 (1961); see also Szymborski v. Slatina, 386 Mich. 339, 340, 192 N.W.2d 213 (1971).3 Accordingly, because Birkenheuer's truck undisputedly struck the rear of White's vehicle, a rebuttable presumpti......
-
Johnson v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp.
...potential peril had not been in clear view for any significant length of time[.]" Vander Laan, 385 Mich. at 232. Szymborski [v Slatina, 386 Mich. 339, 341; 192 N.W.2d 213 (1971),] addressed the sudden-emergency doctrine in the context of the rear-end presumption. The Court stated that the s......
-
Paul v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Mich.
... ... prudent person rule, and as such is not an affirmative ... defense." Szymborski v Slatina , 386 Mich. 339, ... 341; 192 N.W.2d 213 (1971) (quotation marks, citation, and ... emphasis omitted). The doctrine applies ... ...