Zuidema v. Bekkering

• Decision Date: 08 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 160.,160.
• Parties: ZUIDEMA v. BEKKERING.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

256 Mich. 327

239 N.W. 333

ZUIDEMA

v.BEKKERING.

No. 160.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 8, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; William B. Brown, Judge.

Action by Alice Zuidema against Gerrit Bekkering. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Dunham, Taylor & Allaben, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Linsey, Shivel & Phelps and Knappen, Uhl, Bryant & Show, all of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

POTTER, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages alleged to have resulted from personal injuries, caused by defendant's negligence. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff, riding in an automobile driven by her husband, was injured by its collision with defendant's automobile at the intersection of the so-called Byron Center road with the so-called Fisher road in Kent county, August 7, 1930, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Byron Center road is a paved highway running north and south. The Fisher road is a country highway running east and west and crossing the Byron Center highway at right angles. Defendant was going north on the Byron Center highway, and plaintiff was riding with her husband going west on the Fisher highway toward its intersection with the Byron Center road. The weather was clear. The collision occurred in broad daylight. Plaintiff claims her husband stopped the automobile driven by him before attempting to cross the paved highway. There was testimony disputing this claim and testimony tending to show the occupants of the car admitted at the time it had not been stopped by plaintiff's husband.

Defendant was called, under the statute, and examined as a witness for plaintiff, and upon cross-examination by his own counsel he was asked, ‘Was there anything you could have done that you did not do to avert this accident after you discovered the machine?’ This question was objected to, and after some comment by the court, he was permitted to answer, ‘No, there was not.’ It is claimed by plaintiff that the ruling of the trial court in permitting the defendant to answer this question allowed the witness to invade the province of the jury, that the question was improper and called for a conclusion and not for facts, and for this error the judgment should be reversed. Previous to this time the defendant had been asked whether or not he applied his brakes, whether he had an opportunity to drive behind the car which was crossing the highway in front of him, whether he had an opportunity to drive in front of the car, and he testified he put on his brakes as quick as he could. Neither car was overturned. In Langworthy v. Township of Green, 88 Mich. 207, 50 N. W. 130, 132, plaintiff was permitted to testify he was driving as carefully as he could. A motion was made to strike out this testimony, which motion was overruled. This court said: ‘The rule is that, where the court or jury can make their own deductions, they shall not be made by those testifying; but where the witness gives fully and succinctly, as in this instance, the facts upon which he bases that...