Court Opinion

ID: 9668557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:18:00.455217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:46.093275
License: Public Domain

Edwards, J.
(concurring). The facts have been recited by my Brothers in some detail. We deal *400here with plaintiff’s appeal from a jury verdict directed against him by the trial judge on defendant’s motion. Reviewing such a motion we view the pertinent facts from a point of view favorable to the plaintiff. Canning v. Cunningham, 322 Mich 182; Miller v. Pillow, 337 Mich 262; Gapske v. Hatch, 347 Mich 648.
The defendant truck driver had notice that there were small children in the immediate vicinity of his truck. He got into his truck without prior observation of the entire area behind and proceeded to back up. He did so, leaning out of the driver door and looking back at his left-wheel track. The record does not indicate that any warning was given. He had no rear-view mirror on the right-hand side. He could not see behind the right side of his truck. As he was backing up in this situation, he ran over this small boy with his left-rear wheels.
There is no contributory negligence chargeable to a 4-year-old child. Guscinski v. Kenzie, 282 Mich 204; Edgerton v. Lynch, 255 Mich 456.
The standard of care required of drivers backing vehicles in a vicinity where small children are known to be present is higher than that required when only adults are known to be present.
Corpus Juris Secundum says on our present problem:
“The operator of a motor vehicle who knows that a young child is likely to be at any place on private premises has the duty to use due care with respect to such child in backing the vehicle. Whether an ■operator is negligent in backing a vehicle with resultant injury to a child depends on whether, in the light of existing circumstances and conditions, the operator exercises the care of a reasonably prudent person. Because of the limitation on the view •of the area to be traversed in backing, the operation requires corresponding vigilance in order to *401avoid injury to a child who is known to he, or likely to be, at the particular place, and increased vigilance in backing may be essential where the operator is chargeable with knowledge of the traits of a child of the age of the injured child or where the operator knows that small children are at play in the vicinity of his vehicle.” 60 CJS, Motor Vehicles, § 349, p 822.
See, also, Roach v. Petrequin, 234 Mich 551 ; Kinsler v. Simpson, 257 Mich 7; Jenkins v. Bentley, 277 Mich 81; and 60 CJS, Motor Vehicles, § 396.
The facts recited above presented a question as to whether or not under the circumstances defendant used the care that a reasonably' prudent person would have used. This question was for jury determination. . The trial judge was in error in directing a verdict.
I concur with Justice Black’s reasoning and result.
Dethmers, C. J., concurred with Edwards, j.
Voelker, J., took no part in the decision of this case.