Court Opinion

ID: 9519738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:24:01.409497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:43.029268
License: Public Domain

*100Dethmers, J.
(dissenting). I do not concur in affirmance. The reasoning and holdings in Larned v. Vanderlinde, 165 Mich 464; Evans v. Orttenburger, 242 Mich 57; Domzalski v. Ver Hoven, 253 Mich 497; Goodman v. Theatre Parking, Inc., 286 Mich 80; and Neal v. Cities Service Oil Co., 306 Mich 605, lead to the conclusion that plaintiff must be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law for failure to exercise reasonable care to look out for his own safety or to see what was there plainly to be seen, namely the open stairway. Facts in each of these cases have their distinguishing features. I fail, however, to perceive in the factual differences between the instant case and those cited anything of a character warranting a different legal result. Defendant Veen’s motions for directed verdict and judgment non obstante veredicto should have been granted.
Judgment against defendant Veen should be reversed without a new trial and with costs to him.
North, C. J., and Reid, J., concurred with DethmerSj J. Btttzel, J., did not sit.