Court Opinion

ID: 9724472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:57:40.985096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:00.715430
License: Public Domain

T. G. Kavanagh, J.
[concurring). The Cheli decision requires affirmance and for that reason, I con*463cur. However, I believe tbe better rule is tbat tbe reasonableness of care should be determined by the jury in accord with the principle enunciated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Texas & P. R. Co. v. Behymer (1903), 189 US 468 (23 S Ct 622, 47 L ed 905) at page 470:
“What usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not.”
I believe that negligence should seldom, if ever, be determined as a matter of law for the reasons so well stated in Mr. Justice Cooley’s opinion in Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg (1868), 17 Mich 99.