Thompson v. Mich. Cab Co., No. 45.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtBUSHNELL
Citation279 Mich. 370,272 N.W. 710
Docket NumberNo. 45.
Decision Date21 April 1937
PartiesTHOMPSON v. MICHIGAN CAB CO. et al.

279 Mich. 370
272 N.W. 710

THOMPSON
v.
MICHIGAN CAB CO. et al.

No. 45.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 21, 1937.


Action by Lucille Thompson against Michigan Cab Company and Frank Brace. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County; Leland W. Carr, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Kelley & Seelye, of Lansing, for appellants.


Rathbun & Arvidson, of Lansing, for appellee.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

The sole and controlling question in this appeal arises out of the trial judge's refusal to direct the jury to return a verdict for the defendants on their claim that plaintiff's driver was guilty of negligence as a matter of law, or to grant defendants' motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto.

Plaintiff recovered a verdict for $850 for injuries suffered by her in an automobile collision at the intersection of North Jenison and West Michigan avenues in the city of Lansing, between the hours of 2 and 3 a. m. on January 29, 1935. Neither of these streets was a through highway, but ‘slow’ signs at the corners gave warning of danger. The weather was clear, but these two paved streets were covered with ice resulting from a rain that had fallen during the previous evening. Plaintiff's witness, Will Benjamin, testified that it was one of the most difficult nights on which to drive during the entire winter.

Plaintiff, her husband and Benjamin had just returned to Lansing from a trip to Battle Creek; they were riding in Thompson's car, and due to the unfavorable road conditions the trip had consumed an unusually long time.

Just prior to the collision, Thompson's car, which was being driven by Benjamin, was proceeding in a southerly direction on Jenison approaching Michigan. Benjamin,

[272 N.W. 711]

who appears from his testimony to be the easy, willing type of witness, agreeable to everything proposed on cross as well as direct examination, testified that he stopped on the north crosswalk, lowered his left window, looked in both directions, saw no on-coming traffic and proceeded slowly into the intersection, continuing to watch for approaching vehicles. He said that he did not see defendants' cab until it was coming towards him from the left about 150 feet away. He stated that because of the icy condition of the street he could neither speed up nor stop his car in order to avoid the crash.

Benjamin was closely cross-examined regarding his view towards the east and the record indicates that a row of trees on the north side of Michigan avenue between the sidewalk and the curb prevented his view for more than 150 feet from where he stopped at the north crosswalk. We quote a portion of his recross-examination:

‘Q. As I understand it the only thing that prevented you from seeing the cab was those trees there? A. Yes.

‘Q. And the fact that you were in such a position on Jenison that the trees along the intersection at the left, along the street to your left, were in such a position that they blinded your view, is that it? A. Yes.

‘Q. Your could have moved two or three feet to the south and have seen farther to the east without those trees blinding your view couldn't you? A. Yes, sir.

‘Q. So that when you had started up and had gone two or three feet south from the time you had come to a complete stop, you were then only going about a mile or so an hour, weren't you? A. Yes, I was, around three or two to three.

‘Q. I am speaking of the point two or three feet south. A. Oh yes.

‘Q. Until you came to a complete stop there, how fast were you going then? A. About a mile an hour.

‘Q. About a mile an hour? A. Just starting up.

‘Q. From that point if you had looked to your left down the street you could have seen the car couldn't you? A. Yes, sir.

‘Q. And at that time you could have applied the brakes on your car couldn't you and brought it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Carey v. Derose, No. 36.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 10 Noviembre 1938
    ...666, 248 N.W. 800;Parker v. England, 266 Mich. 467, 254 N.W. 169;Izzo v. Weiss, 270 Mich. 372, 259 N.W. 295;Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 272 N.W. 710;Pulford v. Mouw, 279 Mich. 376, 272 N.W. 713. Under either condition we think that reasonable minds might differ upon the que......
  • Patterson v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, No. 12789
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 5 Diciembre 1956
    ...in the Van Steinburg opinion, and that the last occasion of direct reliance on them dates back to 1937 when Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 375, 376, 272 N.W. 710, 712, was decided. In the Thompson case, it was pointed out that the Van Steinburg opinion was written long ago 186......
  • Davis v. New York Cent. R. Co., No. 77
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 17 Mayo 1957
    ...general rule that the proofs offered by plaintiff must be construed as strongly as possible in his favor. Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 272 N.W. 710; Grover v. Simons, 342 Mich. 480, 70 N.W.2d 775. The rule is applicable notwithstanding that certain inconsistencies and contra......
  • Strong v. Kittenger, No. 68.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 5 Enero 1942
    ...to acquit him of contributory negligence. Putnam v. Detroit United Ry., 164 Mich. 342, 129 N.W. 860.' In Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 373, 272 N.W. 710, 711, this court stated: ‘Under the legitimate inferences from all of plaintiff's testimony taken in its most favorable lig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Carey v. Derose, No. 36.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 10 Noviembre 1938
    ...666, 248 N.W. 800;Parker v. England, 266 Mich. 467, 254 N.W. 169;Izzo v. Weiss, 270 Mich. 372, 259 N.W. 295;Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 272 N.W. 710;Pulford v. Mouw, 279 Mich. 376, 272 N.W. 713. Under either condition we think that reasonable minds might differ upon the que......
  • Patterson v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, No. 12789
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 5 Diciembre 1956
    ...in the Van Steinburg opinion, and that the last occasion of direct reliance on them dates back to 1937 when Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 375, 376, 272 N.W. 710, 712, was decided. In the Thompson case, it was pointed out that the Van Steinburg opinion was written long ago 186......
  • Davis v. New York Cent. R. Co., No. 77
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 17 Mayo 1957
    ...general rule that the proofs offered by plaintiff must be construed as strongly as possible in his favor. Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 272 N.W. 710; Grover v. Simons, 342 Mich. 480, 70 N.W.2d 775. The rule is applicable notwithstanding that certain inconsistencies and contra......
  • Strong v. Kittenger, No. 68.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 5 Enero 1942
    ...to acquit him of contributory negligence. Putnam v. Detroit United Ry., 164 Mich. 342, 129 N.W. 860.' In Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., 279 Mich. 370, 373, 272 N.W. 710, 711, this court stated: ‘Under the legitimate inferences from all of plaintiff's testimony taken in its most favorable lig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT