Townshend v. Reader

• Decision Date: 02 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 144.,144.
• Citation: Townshend v. Reader, 252 Mich. 465, 233 N.W. 381 (Mich. 1930)
• Parties: TOWNSHEND v. READER.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

252 Mich. 465

233 N.W. 381

TOWNSHEND

v.READER.

No. 144.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 2, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; William B. Brown, Judge.

Action by Joseph Townshend, by his next friend, Ivan Townshend, against George B. Reader. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench. Mason, Alexander & McCaslin, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

John J. Smolenski, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

McDONALD, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff when a bicycle on which he was riding came in collision with a truck owned by the defendant and operated by his employee, Rex Karston. The accident occurred at the intersection of Sixth street and Turner avenue in the city of Grand Rapids, Mich. Turner avenue is a through street. By city ordinance, vehicles using Sixth street are required to come to a complete stop before entering on the intersection and to yield the right of way to traffic on the through street. The plaintiff was riding north on Turner avenue. The defendant was approaching from the east on Sixth street. They collided at the intersection. The plaintiff was thrown from his bicycle and severely injured. He asserts negligence on the part of the defendant in failing to stop his truck before entering the intersection and insuddenly accelerating his speed while the plaintiff was passing before him. The defendant denied he was negligent and sought to show that plaintiff's contributory negligence was the sole cause of the accident. On the trial, a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant was denied and the case went to the jury. The plaintiff received a verdict on which judgment was entered. The defendant brings error.

The record presents two questions.

1. Did the court err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law?

The plaintiff's testimony shows that he was traveling north on a through street. He saw the defendant approaching on a side street from the east. He knew the ordinance gave him the right of way and required the defendant to stop his truck before entering the intersection and wait until traffic on the through street had passed. He had a right to assume that the defendant would obey the law. He testified that the movement of the truck indicated it was going to stop; that it slowed down, then suddenly shot ahead, and ran into him as he was about to pass. He saw no danger of a collision until it was too late for him to avoid it. If as he testified, there was no circumstance indicating that the defendant was not going to stop, the plaintiff was not negligent in proceeding to cross. He testified to facts showing that he acted as a reasonably prudent man would have done under the circumstances. It was for the jury to...