Court Opinion

ID: 9699117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:11:02.56907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:46.606742
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
{dissenting). The majority opinion does not adequately inform the profession with respect to plaintiffs’ request to charge No. 13.* The request was instructionally proper for both cases and, as to form, fits our recently announced departure from certain finical notions found in some cases which, for a time, repudiated the good sense of Gillett v. Michi*129gan United Traction Co., 205 Mich 410. The scroll of this Court’s return to the evidentiary principles of Gillett may be unrolled and read commencing with Hett v. Duffy, 346 Mich 456, and continuing through Steger v. Blanchard, 350 Mich 579; Weller v. Mancha, 351 Mich 50; Shaw v. Bashore, 353 Mich 31; Steger v. Blanchard, 353 Mich 140; Weller v. Mancha, 353 Mich 189; and Britten v. Updyke, 357 Mich 466.
These plaintiffs under the cited cases were entitled on request to proper instruction that the statutory presumption of negligence should be applied to the issue of actionable negligence as charged “unless they [the members of the jury] found contrary and credible testimony.”* And Corbin v. Yellow Cab Co., 349 Mich 434, 440, when it is read in proper contest without deletion of the very vitals of the concluding-paragraph of the opinion, clearly supports the propriety of plaintiffs’ said request No. 13.
On such ground I disagree with the conclusion of the Court that “there was evidence which, as said in the case of Patt v. Dilley, 273 Mich 601, caused the presumption to disappear.” Whether such presumption did or did not disappear was a jury question for a properly instructed juryV'not the trial judge.
I would reverse.
Kavanagh, J., concurred with Black, J.
Souris, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 Quotation from Britten v. Updyke at page 473.