Case Name: MANOOGIAN v. CITY OF DETROIT
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1938-06-06
Citations: 284 Mich. 432
Docket Number: Docket No. 94, Calendar No. 40,006
Parties: MANOOGIAN v. CITY OF DETROIT.
Judges: Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Chandler, North, and McAllister, JJ„, concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 284
Pages: 432–434

Head Matter:
MANOOGIAN v. CITY OF DETROIT.
Street Railways — Automobiles—Stopping—Negligence—Directed Verdict.
Operator of municipally owned streetcar who, after having started up streetcar after stop for taking on and discharging passengers, and observing automobile approaching from • left at high rate of speed, again stopped streetcar and avoided collision held, free from negligence as a matter of law in action by per son injured while standing near intersection against speeding motorist, street railway and another motorist who was following streetear.
Appeal from. Wayne; Toms (Robert M.), J.
Submitted April 20, 1938.
(Docket No. 94, Calendar No. 40,006.)
Decided June 6, 1938.
Case by George Manoogian, by his next friend, Alex Manoogian, against City of Detroit, a municipal corporation, Datus M. Pierson and Morris Pitkowitz for damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident. Directed verdict and judgment for defendant City of Detroit. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Derderian & Guidot and Bresnahan & Groefsema, for plaintiff.
Rodney Baxter and Leon H. Harman, for defendant City of Detroit.

Opinion:
Potter, J.
Suit to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by George Manoogian against the city of Detroit, department of street railways, Datus M. Pierson and Morris Pitkowitz. From judgment for defendant city, plaintiff appeals.
The department of street railways of Detroit operates streetcars on Linwood avenue. At the time of plaintiff's injury, he was standing near the southwest corner of the intersection of Linwood and Glendale avenues. This is not a stop street intersection. Plaintiff was where he had a right to be. There is no claim he was contributorily negligent. Defendant city's streetcar was going' south on Linwood and stopped opposite the northeast corner of this inter section. Defendant Pitkowitz was driving a Chevrolet sedan south and stopped opposite the rear of defendant city's streetcar. Defendant Pierson was driving a DeSoto automobile, going west on Grlendale. Both the streetcar and Pitkowitz started south after the streetcar had stopped to take on and discharge passengers at the intersection. Pierson was driving at a high rate of speed and attempted to beat the streetcar at the crossing; and the operator of the streetcar, observing that, if he proceeded, collision with the DeSoto automobile of defendant Pier-son was likely, stopped the streetcar and avoided collision. This was not negligence on the part of the driver of the streetcar, but the observance of due care and caution. The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for defendant city.
Judgment as to the city of Detroit is affirmed, with costs.
Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Chandler, North, and McAllister, JJ", concurred.