Court Opinion

ID: 9719723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:01:37.264825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.543613
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(concurring). Ortisi v. Oderfer (1954), 341 Mich 254, and Buehler v. Beadia (1955), 343 Mich 692, each affirmed the trial court and reaffirmed the early Michigan decision of Travis v. Eisenlord, 256 Mich 264.
In the Ortisi decision, Justice Butzel, after commenting upon the fact that if the traffic light affords no protection to pedestrian or driver then their duties are the same as though the light did not exist, expressed himself on this point as follows (p 259): “This cannot, and should not, be the case. The light must afford some protection. The question is — how much?”
Justice Butzel answered his question of “how much” in both Ortisi and Buehler, by stating: — That a driver or a pedestrian crossing an intersection with *360a green light in Ms favor has a right to assume that the defendant will not- disobey the law and rush the red light; — if the driver or pedestrian had looked and seen defendant approaching he or she would have the right to rest on the assumption that the defendant would stop before the red light and wait until it had changed; — a green light is an invitation to a pedestrian or a driver to proceed across the street and the red light is a command to stop until the light turns green; — whether plaintiff is pedestrian or driver of a car, if he is struck and injured while crossing the intersection under protection of a traffic light, he is not negligent as a matter of law even in the absence of testimony that he attempted to observe approaching vehicles; — if the crossing at the intersection is being made with a favorable green light, the question of contributory negligence is a jury question, namely: Did plaintiff attempt the-crossing in the face of a peril that was reasonably apparent?
That this principle is recognized beyond the confines of this State is evidenced by the following from 164 ALE 8, 234::
“One entering a street or highway intersection with a green light, semaphore go signal, or officer’s-gesture to proceed is entitled to assume that persons on the intersecting street will obey the unfavorable signal facing them; while this does not excuse the person enjoying the favorable signal from acting with reasonable care in the light of all the circumstances, it does tend to make the question whether he exercised such care in the manner with which he entered or passed over the crossing one for the trier of the facts, and the view has accordingly been taken under the facts involved in numerous cases that thecireumstance that one charged with negligence or contributory negligence entered the intersection where the accident occurred with the traffic signal in *361Ms favor operates, or at least tends, to prevent a holding that he was guilty of negligence or contributory negligence as a matter of law, despite a showing that he was guilty of acts or omissions which might otherwise have justified that conclusion.”
The early Michigan decision of Travis v. Eisenlord, supra (relied upon and which formed a base for Ortisi and Buehler), was recognized and approved in 1945 by the California district court of appeals in Taylor v. Sims, 72 Cal App 2d 60, 63, 64 (164 P2d 17), wherein it was stated:
“Since the intersection here involved was controlled by an electric traffic signal plaintiff was not required to look into the cross streets before entering the intersection. The signal permitted him to move in an easterly and westerly direction. The rule being that where the intersection movement of traffic is governed by signaling devices the determination of the question as to whether the one driver or the other is responsible for a collision at the intersection depends primarily upon the showing as to whether one vehicle or the other was being operated in conformity with the signal. The driver proceeding pursuant to the ‘Go’ signal is not to be deemed negligent because he fails to maintain a lookout for a vehicle which might enter the intersection in violation of the signal. (Travis v. Eisenlord, 256 Mich 264; Church v. Shaffer, 162 Wash 126, 129 [297 P 1097, 1098] ; cf. Randall v. Evans, 4 Cal App 2d 575, 576 [41 P2d 561].)”
I concurred with Justice Btjtzel in the Ortisi and Buehler decisions, and I concur with Justice Kavanagh in this appeal.