Court Opinion

ID: 9669363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:53:49.820427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:55.896567
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, J.
(dissenting). As appears in the statement of facts in the Chief Justice’s opinion, which are adequately stated therein and need not here be repeated, plaintiff Houck seems to have had a penchant for doing for each of the defendants, respectively, what the other defendant did for him; namely, run into the rear of the defendant ahead of him and be hit from behind by the defendant following him. The Chief Justice opines that for all of this the plaintiffs should be entitled to a jury crack at both. I respectfully disagree and favor affirmance of the trial court’s entry of judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of defendant Snyder and denial of plaintiffs’ motion for new trial as to defendants Drieberg and Kraft Poods.
*405In my view, the case of Rueger v. Hamling, 355 Mich 489, and the considerable number of cases therein cited, holding it to be negligence as a matter of law to drive in violation of the statutory prohibition against driving at a speed greater than will permit stopping within the assured clear distance ahead, are controlling of decision here that plaintiff Houck was guilty, as a matter of law, of contributory negligence which was a proximate cause of the 2 accidents and his resulting damages, barring his right, and that of his insurer-subrogee, to recover in this case. Accordingly, the judgment non obstante veredicto was properly entered in favor of defendant Snyder. Plaintiff’s contributory negligence, having been a proximate cause, also, of the collision with the Drieberg-Kraft Poods vehicle, bars, as well, plaintiffs’ right to recover against the latter defendants, rendering discussion of plaintiffs’ claims of error in instructions to the jury unnecessary.
The judgment should be affirmed. Costs to defendants.
Kelly and O’Hara, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, J.