Travis v. Eisenlord, 59.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 59.,59. |
| Citation | 239 N.W. 304,256 Mich. 264 |
| Parties | TRAVIS v. EISENLORD et al. (three cases). |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Oakland County; Frank L. Doty, Judge.
Actions by Frank Travis, by Clyde C. Travis and by Lois S. Travis, against Howard G. Eisenlord and others. The suits were consolidated in one trial. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Howard D. Brown, of Detroit (George H. Cary, Jr., of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
Earl K. Gullen, of Detroit, for appellees.
The three causes named in the title are separate suits brought to recover damages for injuries received in an automobile collision which occurred at the intersection of Plymouth and Middlebelt roads in the county of Wayne, Mich. The suits were consolidated in one trial, and will be disposed of in one opinion.
The plaintiffs were riding in an automobile driven by Clyde Travis in an easterly direction on Plymouth road. When four or five hundred feet from the intersection, the driver saw the defendants' truck about one thousand feet away approaching from the south on Middlebelt road. There was a modern signal traffic light suspended above the intersection. As the parties approached the light, it changed from red to green in favor of traffic on Plymouth road and from green to red against traffic on Middlebelt road. The plaintiffs' driver, as was his right, proceeded to cross. The defendant, ignoring the signal, drove into the intersection at a high rate of speed and collided with the other car. Plaintiffs were injured and brought this suit to recover damages. On the trial, at the close of the plaintiffs' case, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because of their failure to look for the defendant before attempting to cross the intersection. From the judgment entered, the plaintiffs have appealed.
The court was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. It he were correct in so holding, it would mean that the driver of the plaintiffs' car must at his peril assume that the defendant would disobey the law and rush the red light. The contrary is true. He had a right to assume that the defendant understood the red signal and that he would not undertake to make the crossing until it had changed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ortisi v. Oderfer
...or without it. This cannot, and should not, be the case. The light must afford some protection. The question is--how much? In Travis v. Eisenlord, 256 Mich. 264. 239 N.W. 304, the plaintiffs were in a car crossing an intersection with the light in their favor. They had seen the defendant's ......
-
Griffith v. Delico Meats Products Co.
... ... Jones, 59 ... S.W.2d 653; Harris v. Moran, 182 A. 661; Osborn & Sons v. Howatt, 167 So. 469; Teas v ... Eisenlord, 253 N.W. 797; Zindell v. Central Mut ... Ins. Co. of Chicago, 269 N.W. 329; Travis v ... Eisenlord, 239 N.W. 304; Church v. Shaffer, 297 ... P ... ...
-
Buehler v. Beadia
...to continue. In Morse v. Bishop, 329 Mich. 488, at pages 490-493, 45 N.W.2d 367, at page 368, we say: 'Plaintiff cites Travis v. Eisenlord, 256 Mich. 264, 239 N.W. 304, as authority for his contention and theory that he had a right to rely on the green light in his favor and upon the assump......
-
Patterson v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
...such as reasonably to distract his attention. Cf. Guggenheim v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 66 Mich. 150, 33 N.W. 161; Travis v. Eisenlord, 256 Mich. 264, 239 N.W. 304; Gaffka v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 301 Mich. 383, 3 N.W.2d 314; Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Collins, 6 Cir., 65 F.2d......