Case Name: MILLER v. DETROIT CAB COMPANY
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1974-09-06
Citations: 392 Mich. 480
Docket Number: No. 2; Docket No. 54,749
Parties: MILLER v DETROIT CAB COMPANY
Judges: T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and T. G. Kavanagh, Williams, and J. W. Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred with Levin, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 392
Pages: 480–487

Head Matter:
MILLER v DETROIT CAB COMPANY
Opinion of the Court
1. Automobiles — Taxicabs—U-Turn—Negligence—Foreseeability.
A reasonable man could properly conclude that a taxicab driver could have avoided an accident if he had been more alert and exercised due care where an automobile made a U-turn from the southbound side of an avenue, crossed the centerline in front of two southbound vehicles the latter being the taxicab, which was traveling 25 miles per hour one car length behind the other vehicle traveling at the same speed, and entered the northbound lanes, and then recrossed the centerline, struck the first automobile and ricocheted into the side of the taxi.
Dissenting Opinion
Swainson and M. S. Coleman, JJ.
2. Automobiles — Judgment—Notwithstanding the Verdict — Motions — Taxicabs—Negligence—Evidence—Proximate Cause —Foreseeability.
A trial judge was correct in granting defendants’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in plaintiff’s favor for injuries received while riding in defendants’ taxicab where even if the jury concluded that the driver was negligent in the operation of his taxicab, there was no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably infer that this negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and it appears that the accident came about not because the driver was too close to the car ahead of him but because of the intervening negligence of a third party that was not reasonably foreseeable by the driver.
3. Judgment — Notwithstanding the Verdict — Evidence—Grounds for Recovery.
In order to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict the trial court must be able to say that after consideration of all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is directed there is still, as a matter of law, no grounds for that party’s recovery.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 5] 8 Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 805.
[2] 8 Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic §§ 1037-1040.
[3] 47 Am Jur 2d, Judgments §§ 106-151.
[4] 58 Am Jur 2d, Negligence §§ 123, 199-205, 212, 219.
4. Negligence — Foreseeability—Intervening Cause — Liability for Damages.
A defendant only becomes responsible for the damages resulting from the intervening actions of a third party when those actions can be said to have been reasonably foreseeable.
5. Automobiles — Taxicabs—U-Turn—Negligence—Foreseeability.
At best, a third party’s conduct was "highly extraordinary’’ and beyond the bounds of those actions that reasonable persons may be expected to reasonably anticipate where the third party made a U-turn from the southbound side of an avenue, crossed the centerline in front of two southbound vehicles, the latter being a taxicab, and entered the northbound lanes, and then recrossed the centerline, struck the ñrst automobile and ricocheted into the side of the taxi; it is unreasonable to argue that the taxi driver should have realized that the third party might continue his U-turn in a circular fashion, reenter the southbound lane, and then collide with the taxi.
Appeal from Court of Appeals, Division 1, Lesinski, C. J., and J. H. Gillis and W. R. Peterson, JJ., affirming Wayne, Dale A. Riker, J.
Submitted April 2, 1974.
(No. 2
April Term 1974,
Docket No. 54,749.)
Decided September 6, 1974.
Complaint by Ida Miller against Detroit Cab Company, Howard Welch, Inc., and Edwin Ernest Lambert for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict for defendants. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment on the verdict.
Lippitt, Perlove, Varga & Zack, for plaintiff.
Sommers, Schwartz, Silver, Schwartz, Tyler & Gordon, P. C. (by Donald J. Morbach), for defendants.

Opinion:
Levin, J.
A reasonable man could properly conclude that the taxicab driver could have avoided the accident if he had been more alert and exercised due care.
The Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment n.o.v. is set aside and the cause is remanded for entry of judgment on the jury's verdict for plaintiff.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and T. G. Kavanagh, Williams, and J. W. Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred with Levin, J.