Young v. Martinich
| Decision Date | 02 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 92.,92. |
| Citation | 279 Mich. 267,271 N.W. 753 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. MARTINICH. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Fenton Young against Tom Martinich. From a judgment for defendant on a directed verdict, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
FEAD, C. J., and BUSHNELL, and SHARPE, JJ., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Berrien County; Fremont Evans, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Willard J. Benyon, of St. Joseph, and Gore, Harvey & Fisher, of Benton Harbor, for appellant.
Clarence E. Butler, of Benton Harbor, for appellee.
The evening of March 14, 1934, as plaintiff, a man of mature years, was diagonally crossing an east and west street in the village of Millburg, he was struck by defendant's automobile and injured. He brought this suit to recover damages and, upon trial by jury, the court directed a verdict for defendant, holding that under his testimony plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Plaintiff claims that his testimony presented an issue of fact for the jury, moved for and was denied a new trial, and reviews by appeal.
Plaintiff was crossing the street from the south side to the north, walking in a northwesterly direction, and he testified that, before entering upon the pavement, he looked twice each way and saw an automobile light 1,300 or 1,400 feet away to the east; thought he could cross the road in safety and started across, diagonally, walking his usual gait, did not look again, and was struck by defendant's car traveling at 40 or 45 miles per hour, just as he was about to step on the ‘tree lawn’ on the north side of the street.
The circuit judge held, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in not looking when he reached the center of the pavement and was about to enter the pathway of the known approaching car.
It is manifest that, had he so looked, he would have discovered the near approach of the car and have changed his mind about having time in which to cross in safety.
In point of law was it plaintiff's duty, when about to enter the pathway of the car he knew was approaching, to make observation of its position, or was he absolved from such duty by his previous observation and thought that the car was far enough away to require no further attention? Did his mistaken sense of safety, so easily corrected by the exercise of ordinary care, present an issue of fact for the jury? To so hold would subordinate the reasonable rule of duty to that of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldbaum v. James Mulligan Printing & Pub. Co.
... ... Richardson v. Williamson, 249 Mich. 350, 228 N.W ... 766; Jones v. Armstrong, 231 Mich. 637, 204 N.W ... 702; Young v. Martinich, 279 Mich. 267, 271 N.W ... 753; Haley v. Grosse Ile Rapid Transit Co., 290 ... Mich. 373, 287 N.W. 536; Lodato v. Camel, 284 Mich ... ...
-
Morrison v. Grass, s. 58
...a verdict for defendant as a matter of law, the claimed errors in the charge become inconsequential.' Also see, Young v. Martinich, 279 Mich. 267, 271 N.W. 753, and Davidson v. City of Detroit, 307 Mich. 420, 12 N.W.2d 413. We conclude that plaintiff Carre W. Morrison was guilty of contribu......
-
Carey v. Derose, 36.
...19, 229 N.W. 430;McKelvey v. Hill, 259 Mich. 16, 242 N.W. 822; Brodie v. City of Detroit, 275 Mich. 626,267 N.W. 579;Young v. Martinich, 279 Mich. 267, 271 N.W. 753;DeCoopman v. Hammond, 279 Mich. 619, 273 N.W. 290;Wells v. Oliver, 283 Mich. 168, 277 N.W. 872;Slingerland v. Snell, 283 Mich.......
-
Dasovich v. Longacre
...recovery. The trial court was right in direction a verdict in favor of defendant.' In the prevailing opinion in Young v. Martinich, 279 Mich. 267, 271 N.W. 753, 754, wherein verdict directed against plaintiff on the ground of contributory negligence was affirmed, the facts are quite similar......