Case Name: HOPKINS v. LAKE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1957-05-17
Citations: 348 Mich. 382
Docket Number: Docket No. 38, Calendar No. 46,958
Parties: HOPKINS v. LAKE.
Judges: Sharpe and Caer, JJ., concurred with Kelly, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 348
Pages: 382–401

Head Matter:
HOPKINS v. LAKE.
1. Appeal and Error — Directed Verdict — Evidence.
The pertinent faets are viewed from a point of view favorable to plaintiff on appeal from an order granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
2. Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Young Boy.
A boy 4 years and 10 months of age is too young to be chargeable with contributory negligence in his action for personal injuries.
3. Automobiles — Backing—Observation-—Children.
Common-law standards of care require reasonable observation by a person backing a motor vehicle, especially where the motorist knows, or should know, that children are likely to be affected by such backing.
4. Same — Dump-Truck Driver — Negligence—Question por Jury.
Whether or not defendant dump-truck driver was guilty of negligence was a question for jury where he backed up his truck at speed of 1 mile an hour toward loading crane engaged in excavation work on premises owned by father of plaintiff, a boy 4 years and 10 months of age, and who was nearby at time of injury, and defendant knew child had recently been in the vicinity; the standard of care of a prudent person under such circumstances being one of faet.
Sharpe, Kelly, and Carr, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Jackson; Boardman (Harry D.), J.
Submitted October 10, 1956.
(Docket No. 38, Calendar No. 46,958.)
Decided May 17, 1957.
Rehearing denied June 10, 1957.
References for Points in Headnotes
-,T] 3 Am Jur, Appeal and Error §§ 886, 945.
I [2] 5A Am Jur, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 777.
• £3,4] 5A Am Jur, Automobiles and Highway Traffic §§ 396-399.
Case by Thomas R. Hopkins, a minor, by his next friend, Wayne E. Hopkins, against Harry Lake for damages for personal injuries sustained when run over by wheels of dump truck during excavation operations on father’s farm property. Directed verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Defendant cross-appeals claiming verdict should have been directed at earlier stage of proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Kelly, Kelly <& Kelly, for plaintiff.
Rosenburg, Painter £ Davidson, for defendant.

Opinion:
Kelly, J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff (Tommy Hopkins), a boy 4 years and 10 months of age, by his father as next friend, brought this action for damages, claiming that while passing behind defendant's dump truck, defendant placed the truck in motion without making observation and backed into, against and upon plaintiff causing him personal injuries.
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of proofs. Defendant cross-appeals, claiming the court erred in not granting defendant's motions for directed verdict made after the opening statement and again at the conclusion of plaintiff's proofs.
The accident occurred on plaintiff's father's farm. A root cellar was being constructed and a crane operated by Frederick Houghton was excavating the hole and loading defendant's dump truck and another truck operated by Raymond Crisp.
Plaintiff, in company with his father, watched this operation between 9 and 10 o'clock on the morning the excavation commenced and during this period several trips were made from the point of excavation to the point of dump by both defendant's and Crisp's trucks'.. Upon returning after dumping, the trucks would- drive west of the hole and then, back eastward to the excavation for the next load.
About 10 a.m. there .was a pause in the work. At this time the empty Crisp .truck was backed up to the hole in readiness for another load. Defendant's empty truck was in front of the Crisp truck about 35 to 40- feet to the west of the hole. During this intermission .plaintiff's father served watermelon to the truck drivers, the crane operator, and plaintiff's mother and his 2 brothers (a baby 14 months old and John, 7 years of age). This watermelon incident' occurred in close proximity to the crane and the Crisp truck.
Plaintiff's mother testified'
"That was when we started to eat the watermelon. The man with the crane was there too. That little-incident occupied probably 10 or 15 minutes to the best of my knowledge. At about the conclusion of' that time I realized that the crane driver went to go back to his crane, and I realized John wasn't there- and that they were going to start work again, so I left to find John. At the time I left-to find John, the rest of them were still there — all but the crane-driver. Tommy was still there."
Plaintiff's mother also testified that after looking in the chicken house for her son John, she went to-the home and there saw plaintiff Tommy filling a pitcher with water from the hose attached to the side of the house. She said:
"Prom the time I left the. group to go to the chicken house and back up to the house, it couldn't have been more than 2 minutes, and at that time Tommy was-getting the water at the hose nozzle."
Plaintiff's mother did not see Tommy again until after the accident and offered no further testimony in regard- to defendant's negligence.
Tommy's father was plaintiff's only other witness. He testified that "after the watermelon eating" the crane man went to his crane and started filling Crisp's truck and Crisp went over to his truck, but that defendant "didn't go to his truck immediately, —he was talking with me, same place where we were eating watermelon;" that after Crisp's truck was loaded and "at the time Mr. Crisp drove his car out of the loading site my son was no longer there to my knowledge;" that "I believe Mr. Crisp pulled his truck out a matter of a few seconds before I turned •and walked to the excavation. Shortly after he (Crisp) pulled out of there I then walked tow'ards the hole. At that time I knew that the Lake truck was up ahead some 35 or 40 feet. I knew that truck was going to be backed up towards the hole to this point where Crisp's truck had been loaded for another load;" that "I watched him (defendant) get in his truck and turned around and went to the hole. I seen him get in his truck. I didn't actually see him start to move the truck;" that about 30 seconds later the accident occurred about 5 or 6 feet to the west of where he was standing and he became aware of the accident when he heard the breaking óf glass, evidently when the pitcher broke; that defendant immediately stopped the truck when he hollered and then at his request defendant advanced his truck a few feet disengaging plaintiff from the rear wheels.
Plaintiff's position on the appeal presented to this Court is set forth in his brief, as follows:
"We see no point in extending this brief unduly in argument on the single question presented.
"There was evidence that this 4-years, 10-months-old boy was in the area of defendant's truck operations for an hour and a half prior to the accident, where he could be seen by defendant while defendant was coming and going with his truck; that he was in the little group that gathered during the water melon lunch; that he was sent from this group, in the presence of defendant, to get a pitcher of water, which he was to return to the place where they were gathered, and which would take him in the path of defendant's hacking truck; that the place where the water supply was and the area between that place and the place to which he was to return were within the view of defendant where he stood before going to his truck, while he was going to his truck preparatory to backing it, and while he was backing it; that within less than 30 seconds from the time defendant went to his truck, the plaintiff, carrying the pitcher of water, was backed over by the right-rear dual wheels; that defendant did not at any time before entering his truck or while backing it look for plaintiff in the direction in which he had gone and where he was, in fact, seen, as testified to by Mrs. Hopkins."
Tommy's father testified that in defendant's presence he asked Tommy to go get water. He was confronted with his signed statement (made 2 or 3 days after the accident) containing the following:
"I don't recall if I sent Thomas to the house for water or if he went on his own. My back was turned towards the house and Harry's -truck. I was watching the power shovel. I didn't see or hear Thomas coming back from the house. I didn't know he was around. While standing like this, I heard glass break and turned around and could see that Harry'struck had backed onto Thomas."
Defendant testified:
"Prior to the accident I didn't know that there was any well up near the house. I did not know of any hose up near the well, or any nozzle on the hose. I did not know where water was brought from, if it was brought.
"After this 10- or 15-minute interval when the melon was finished, I do not know what became of Mrs. Hopkins and the baby that she had and Tommy. I couldn't tell where they went. They remained where I was until the melon was done, but I turned and went to my truck. Now, I don't know which direction she went. She went away from the scene of the watermelon. Tommy did. Mr. Hopkins did not to my knowledge tell Tommy to go get a pitcher of water. Tommy was not there when I left. I did not at any time hear Mr. Hopkins tell Tommy in my presence to go get a pitcher of water. I did not know that Tommy had gone any place for any purpose."
Witnesses Crisp and Houghton testified they did not hear the father send the boy for water and did not know he had gone to the house to get water.
Truck driver Crisp testified that after his truck was loaded, as it stood just west of the excavation and north of the crane, he pulled away from the excavation, going west, then northerly, and then easterly, making a circle to go out the driveway; that "as I drove around and through these 2 trees and back onto the driveway, Tommy was not there in this loading area. As I drove my truck out to the driveway, Tommy was not there in that area that I was driving in."
Mr. Houghton testified that he was the operator of the power-shovel crane which had a boom on it extending 30 feet beyond the body of the crane; that the crane faced east and as he operated same he sat on the north side of the crane; that he started work the morning of the accident about 8 o'clock and that up to the time of the accident about 30 loads had been excavated and hauled away; that the watermelon incident occurred west and a little bit north of the crane and in reference to the Crisp truck it would be west and a little south; that "we were stand ing- around there eating watermelon 10 to 15 minutes. When we finished, Mrs. Hopkins and the children left approximately the same time I did.- I believe she went towards the house. I believe Tommy was with her. He wasn't there, anyway. He wasn't there when I began operations of loading the truck;" that he loaded the Crisp truck, requiring about 3 minutes of time and 8 buckets of dirt, and that during this time of loading Crisp was standing alongside of his truck and plaintiff's father was standing south of Crisp's truck and a little west of the crane; that as he loaded the Crisp truck he would swing his crane to the north (in the direction of the house where Tommy got water) and then to the west to dump the load in the truck; that his cab was 1 foot higher than the truck, which allowed him to see over the top of the truck; that as he loaded the Crisp truck and as he commenced operations to load defendant's truck, he did not see Tommy in or near the loading area; that he was in the process of filling the first bucket to place in defendant's truck and was facing east when the accident occurred; that he didn't see it, and the first he knew anything had happened was when he heard plaintiff's father yelling; that at the time the accident occurred "the truck was going very slow; by that, I mean down to a crawl."
Defendant testified that as Crisp's truck was loaded and pulled away from the hole, Tommy yras not in the loading area; that he got in his truck (a dump-truck with a large steel body on it) and opened the door on the driver's, or left, side, and leaning out the door looked to the east toward the hole to which he was backing; that he could see the loading site as he backed and Tommy was not in the area; that he backed at a speed of about 1 mile an hour; that "as I was backing up I maintained myself in a position looking over my left shoulder to the rear. With my right hand on the steering wheel, left on the door, holding the door. I maintained that position all the way until I heard the glass break. I was backing that truck up, looking to .the east, up to the time I heard the glass break. I did not see -anything of Tommy before I heard the glass break. He was not in the line of my vision at all. I have one rear-view mirror on my truck, on the driver's side. Left side. As I am backing my truck up with my head out and looking to the rear I cannot see to the right side of my truck. I could of. seen Mr. Hopkins when I was backing. He was to the west of the crane. I did see Mr. Hopkins. I was approaching within 4 foot of where we loaded when I heard this glass break."
In determining the merits of this appeal, this Court will apply certain principles, namely:
1. The question of contributory negligence is not in the case because plaintiff was too young to be chargeable with contributory negligence. Guscinski v. Kenzie, 282 Mich 204.
2. Commondaw standards of care require reasonable observation by a person backing a motor vehicle, and this is especially true where the person knows, or should know, that children are likely to be affected by such backing. Kinsler v. Simpson, 257 Mich 7; Jenkins v. Bentley, 277 Mich 81.
3. In determining as to whether a directed verdict should be granted or not, the unimpeached and un-eontradicted evidence produced by the defendant must be accepted. Christiansen v. Hilber, 282 Mich 403.
4. There must be substantial evidence which forms-a reasonable basis for the inference of negligence,, and this must be more than a mere possibility that unreasonable conduct of defendant caused the injury. Poundstone v. Niles Creamery, 293 Mich 455.
The record is silent as to the path Tommy traveled from the house after filling the pitcher to a place behind defendant's backing truck. Did he travel the shortest distance between those 2 points, or did he detour to the right or left because something attracted his childish interests? Did he run or walk any part of this journey? The record does not answer these questions, because no one who testified saw Tommy on his return trip from the house.
The house, where Tommy filled the pitcher, was about 150 feet north of the. excavation and there were trees between the house and the excavation. Counsel for plaintiff and defendant evidently did not prepare a plat showing location of house, trees and place of excavation, previous to trial. During trial a rough drawing was used, and this is incorporated in the record but is not of substantial value to this Court.
Appellee, in his brief, refers to this drawing and states:
"There were a number of trees south of the father's home and north of the loading site. Defendant's exhibit E (the drawing) shows the relative location of these trees, and the location of defendant's truck prior to its backing to the loading site, and showing a rectangular area in the southeast corner of the exhibit which is the excavation, and showing 4 or 5 large evergreen trees 25 to 30 feet tall along the north side of the excavation. There are roughly 20 trees in the area to the rear of the house."
Plaintiff filed a reply brief and did not controvert appellee's statement in regard to these trees, but did state:
"That the hose was about 150 feet north of the place where the trucks were backing; that between these points there were only 2 or 3 small maple trees with high branches, and a person walking under them could be seen clear to the house."
Mr. Houghton, the crane operator, testified in regard to the trees, as follows:
"I had occasion to look at the number of trees between that well (where Tommy filled the pitcher) and the point where Mr. Lake's truck was parked. I don't know the total. Between 15 and 20 trees, approximately."
Tommy's father testified that defendant's vision toward the house as he walked toward his truck was not obstructed by these trees, because he could see a person walking under them.
Plaintiff's case is'based on the theory that there was a path that plaintiff could have traveled from the house to the rear' of defendant's truck and that if defendant had looked north to the house as he walked from the watermelon site to his truck, he would have observed the boy approaching the truck. There is no proof that the boy traveled this path.
Defendant's testimony stands uncontradicted that he exercised every precaution a reasonable man could exercise as he looked from his cab toward the rear and as he backed his truck at a speed of 1 mile per hour toward the excavation. Also, there is the testimony of Crisp and Houghton that they did not see the boy just prior to the accident and did not think he was in the vicinity of the loading area.
There was a lack of substantial evidence which formed a reasonable basis for the inference of defendant's negligence, and the trial court did not err in directing a verdict.
Judgment should be affirmed, costs to appellee.
Sharpe and Caer, JJ., concurred with Kelly, J.
Note: The record establishes that the boy was struck by the left-rear dual wheels.