Wolfe v. Marks, 51.
Decision Date | 05 October 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 51.,51. |
Citation | 277 Mich. 154,269 N.W. 125 |
Parties | WOLFE v. MARKS. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Sadie Wolfe against Herman Marks. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Vincent M. brennan, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, J.
Howard D. Brown, of Detroit (Louis M. Dyll, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Vandeveer & Vandeveer, of Detroit, for appellee.
The evening of December 19, 1933, plaintiff and her husband were guests of defendant, riding with him in his automobile when there was a blowout of the left rear tire, the car upset, plaintiff was injured and brought this suit to recover damages. Plaintiff had verdict for $9,000 and judgment, by ordered reduction, for $7,000, and defendant reviews by appeal.
Being a guest, plaintiff could recover damages only upon showing that the accident was occasioned by reason of defendant's gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. Comp.Laws 1929, § 4648.
Defendant claims there was an absence of such a showing, and therefore the court was in error in submitting the question to the jury.
Plaintiff testified:
If it can be said that this testimony omitted any essential to establish willful and wanton misconduct, the testimony of plaintiff's husband supplied the want, for he said: attention was called to it and he looked at his brake and said, ‘My brake is all right, it is that boot in the rear tire.’ * * * At that time I said, ‘Herman, if you have got a boot in that tire, you stop your car and let us get out and look at it.’ * * * I said that two or three times. * * * He said, ‘No, I will stop at the next gasoline station and have them look at it, and taken care of.’ * * * Then we approached this gasoline station and I called his attention that there was a gasoline station. ‘Now, go in there and have it taken care of as you said you would.’ But he didn't do that. Then Mrs. Wolfe said, ‘Please, Herman, I am nervous, go back in that station and have it taken care of as you promised.’ And he didn't do that. He kept right on. He said, I said, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rinkevich v. Coeling
...Mich. 62, 253 N.W. 217; Schneider v. Draper, 276 Mich. 259, 267 N.W. 831; Lucas v. Lindner, 276 Mich. 704, 269 N.W. 611; Wolfe v. Marks, 277 Mich. 154, 269 N.W. 125; Malicote v. De Bondt, 281 Mich. 650, 275 N.W. 664; Rattner v. Lieber, 294 Mich. 447, 293 N.W. 712; Greimel v. Fischer, 305 Mi......
-
Wolf v. Holton
...212 Ark. 17, 205 S.W. 2d 40; Masters v. Cardi, 186 Va. 261, 42 S.E. 2d 202; Bryll v. Bryll, 114 Conn. 668, 159 A. 884; Wolfe v. Marks, 277 Mich. 154, 269 N.W. 125. The respondent was not a guest within the meaning of the New Mexico statute having undertaken to pay for her transportation. Pr......
-
Woolf v. Holton
...N.E.2d 310; Kerstetter v. Elfman, 327 Pa. 17, 192 A. 663; Gifford v. Dice, 269 Mich. 293, 257 N.W. 830, 96 A. L. R. 1477; Wolfe v. Marks, 277 Mich. 154, 269 N.W. 125; Lennon et ux. v. Woodbury, (Calif. App., 1935) P.2d 292; Stalcup v. Ruzic, 51 N. M. 377, 185 P.2d 298; Fly v. Swink, 17 Tenn......
-
Rogers v. Merritt
...285 Mich. 559, 281 N.W. 326;Murner v. Thorpe, 284 Mich. 331, 279 N.W. 849;Thomas v. Parsons, 278 Mich. 276, 270 N.W. 296;Wolfe v. Marks, 277 Mich. 154, 269 N.W. 125;Schneider v. Draper, 276 Mich. 259, 267 N.W. 831;Lucas v. Lindne, 276 Mich. 704, 269 N.W. 611. The judgment for defendant is r......