Court Opinion

ID: 9520344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:37:00.629879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:01.265747
License: Public Domain

Edwards, J.
(concurring). We concur in affirmance on the ground set forth in the circuit judge’s opinion as quoted by Mr. Justice Carr :
“I cannot perceive how reasonable men could have found otherwise than that plaintiff was contributorily negligent under this state of facts, laying aside the question of defendant’s negligence as to observation or control of his vehicle. It is distinguishable from the case where a plaintiff does not have uninterrupted vision or the case where a pedestrian fails to look after passing the center of the street for say automobiles running on the wrong side of the street. See Rowland v. Brown, 237 Mich 570, 576. Rather it is a case where there was clear vision, where the plaintiff looked to the north and did not see defendant’s car and first observed it after he then had looked to the south and then back to the north and then found defendant’s car only a few feet from him.”
This accident occurred at night on a busily traveled thoroughfare while plaintiff, pedestrian, was attempting to cross midblock. He had only 2 directions in which to observe and could count on no protection from traffic devices or crosswalks. Cf. McKinney v. Yelavich, 352 Mich 687; Bartlett v. Melzo, 351 Mich 177; Barron v. City of Detroit, 348 Mich 213.
The defendant, under the undisputed evidence, had his lights on and was available for plaintiff’s unim*518peded observation for over 300 feet as lie traveled straight ahead (cf. Ware v. Nelson, 351 Mich 390) at the legal speed of 25 miles per hour. Cf. Bartlett v. Melzo, supra.
We find no view of the facts favorable to plaintiff which explains his admitted failure to observe defendant until the instant before impact.
Smith and Souris, JJ., concurred with Edwards, J.