Wells v. Oliver

• Decision Date: 24 February 1938
• Docket Number: Nos. 102,103.,s. 102
• Citation: 283 Mich. 168,277 N.W. 872
• Parties: WELLS v. OLIVER (two cases).
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

283 Mich. 168

277 N.W. 872

WELLS

v.OLIVER (two cases).

Nos. 102, 103.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 24, 1938.

Suits by Bruce Wells and by Louise Wells, his wife, against George M. Oliver, Jr., for injuries from an automobile collision. From judgments for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Saginaw County; James E. O'Neill, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

O'Keefe & O'Keefe and Nash & Nash, all of Saginaw, for appellants.

Picard & Heilman, of Saginaw, for appellee.

WIEST, Chief Justice.

At the midnight hour of a July night in 1935, in the city of Saginaw, plaintiff Bruce Wells, accompanied by his wife, Louise Wells, while driving his automobile east on Johnson street, across the intersection of Second avenue, was, together with Mrs. Wells, injured when his car was struck by the automobile of defendant which approached from the south on Second avenue. The above suits were brought to recover damages for personal injuries, and, for the purposes of trial, consolidated. The court, at the close of plaintiffs' proofs, directed verdicts for defendant on the ground of the contributory negligence of Mr. Wells as a matter of law, and, under the rule of imputed negligence, that barred the action of Mrs. Wells.

Upon review plaintiffs contend that the issue of contributory negligence was for the jury.

Johnson street runs east and west, and Second avenue north and south. As Mr. Wells approached the intersection from the west on Johnson street he slowed his car, when about thirty feet from the intersection curb, and looked to the right, or south on Second avenue, and testified that he saw no car approaching within the distance of 200 feet, that being the limit of his vision from that point and, after looking to the left, entered the intersection at a speed of about seventeen miles per hour and, when at the middle of the intersection, looked again to his right and saw defendant's car approaching within eighty feet, at a high rate of speed, and it struck his car.

Upon this review we accord plaintiffs' evidence the most favorable consideration. If, as plaintiffs claim, their view to the right, from the point before entering the intersection, was restricted, then Mr. Wells was guilty of negligence in not taking another look to his right when the view was enlarged and before proceeding to the center of the intersection. He was bound to observe and pay heed, while crossing, to traffic approaching the intersection from his right, and the fact that defendant's car was traveling at a high rate of speed and skidded about forty-one feet before the collision had no bearing upon plaintiffs' failure to look to the right while crossing the intersection. When plaintiffs' car was at the...