Court Opinion

ID: 9661089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:29:06.803916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:25.499959
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, J.
(dissenting). I do not concur in affirmance. Plaintiff’s failure to “look again” while driving the last 100 feet to the point of impact constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law, under our previous decisions, barring the right to recover. In Holley v. Farley, 289 Mich 676, plaintiff’s driver was travelling on a through highway at 30 miles per hour; when 150 feet from the intersection he looked to his right, but his view was obstructed and he did not look in that direction again until an instant before the collision, although one of his passengers, when they were 80 feet from the center of the intersection, saw defendant’s automobile coming from the right 125 feet from the center of the intersection, travelling at 45 miles per hour; defendant failed to stop for the stop sign. This Court held plaintiff’s driver guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law for failure to maintain a reasonable and proper lookout for approaching traffic. Mr. Justice Smith would distinguish the instant case from Holley in that there the favored driver at no time observed defendant’s approaching automobile (he looked when 150 feet from the intersection, but his view was obstructed), *439while here plaintiff, when 100 feet from the intersection and travelling at 30 miles per hour, observed defendant 160 to 170 feet therefrom travelling from 45 to 50 miles per hour. The distinction is of scant benefit to plaintiff under our previous holdings. Wo have constantly held that a favored driver approaching an intersection who seasonably observes another vehicle approaching it at right angles and then proceeds in reliance on the right-of-way without giving the other vehicle further heed is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law equally as if he had not looked at all. MacDonald v. Skornia, 322 Mich 370; Boerema v. Cook, 256 Mich 266; Block v. Peterson, 284 Mich 88; Koehler v. Thom, 285 Mich 593; Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich 186; Lacaeyse v. Roe, 310 Mich 591; Martin v. City of Detroit, 314 Mich 77. Accordingly, decision in Holley is controlling here. In Wehling v. Linder, 248 Mich 241, plaintiff’s automobile, travelling on a through street, was struck by defendant’s truck, which failed to stop for the through street as required by ordinance. Plaintiff and her driver saw the truck when it was-100 feet distant, but gave it no further heed, assuming that the driver would accord them the right-of-way. This Court held plaintiff and her driver guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law for failure “to continue to make reasonably careful observations of the approaching truck.” While judgment non obstante veredicto was upheld therein as to 2 defendants on another ground as well, this-ground was requisite to the holding in favor of the-third defendant. That case is equally controlling here. Analogous are Kerr v. Hayes, 250 Mich 19; Block v. Peterson, supra; Koehler v. Thom, supra; and Afman v. Kraker, 305 Mich 504, and others of like circumstance and import in which plaintiff drivers enjoying the statutory right-of-way at intersections were held guilty of contributory negligence-*440as a matter of law for contenting themselves with reliance thereon and failing to maintain a reasonable and proper lookout or to give heed to approaching traffic, this Court saying that the right-of-way is not an assurance of safety which excuses the holder thereof from the duty of making proper observation. The principles involved in those cases are applicable and controlling here. The same may be said of Steele v. Hamilton, 218 Mich 522; Sloan v. Ambrose, 300 Mich 188; Long v. Garneau, 319 Mich 291; Boyd v. Maruski, 321 Mich 71; and Ashley v. Kilborn, 333 Mich 283, in which plaintiff pedestrians crossing intersections under protection of green traffic lights were, for failure to maintain a reasonable and proper lookout for approaching traffic, held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. As said by Mr. Justice Carr in Ortisi v. Oderfer, 341 Mich 254, 277, in speaking of the Ashley Case:
“The principles there recognized and applied find support in the cases above cited, and are likewise in harmony with other recent decisions, among^which are: Morse v. Bishop, 329 Mich 488; Zivas v. Jinkins, 329 Mich 659; Cioffari v. Blanchard, 330 Mich 518; Ludwick v. Hendricks, 335 Mich 633; Levine v. Schonborn, 336 Mich 312; Denman v. Youngblood, 337 Mich 383; MacKenzie v. Sternicki, 338 Mich 487; Letcher v. Robinson, 340 Mich 350.”
Challenged in the instant case is the trial court’s' denial of defendants’ motions for directed verdict and judgment non obstante veredicto. The precise question for our determination narrows down to whether plaintiff’s failure to “look again” during the last 100 feet before collision gives rise to a question of fact or a question of law as to contributory negligence. Mr. Justice Smith holds it to be a question of fact for the jury. I do not agree that Arnold v. Krug, 279 Mich 702, is authority for that view. In the first place, this Court did not hold in that *441case that the question of the negligence of the driver on the favored highway was one of fact for the jury, but, on the contrary, determined that, as a matter of law, he was free from negligence. In the second place, “the only claim of fault” or negligence charged against him was failure to slow down as. he approached the intersection. This Court held that as a matter of law a driver on a favored highway is not required to slow down for every intersection in the absence of circumstances disclosing the necessity therefor. Failure on the part of the favored driver to make proper observation was not so much as discussed by this Court in that case. In consequence, it is not authority for the proposition that such failure presents a question of fact rather than one of law.
Also relied upon as holding that the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence in failing to maintain a proper lookout is one of fact for the jury are Breker v. Rosema, 301 Mich 685 (141 ALR 867), and cases therein cited. In Breker, plaintiff’s driver, travelling the favored highway, suffered an accident-induced amnesia and because there was no eyewitness on the point or testimony to the contrary, this Court indulged the presumption that he had maintained a reasonable and proper lookout. Proceeding-on the assumption that he had maintained such lookout and the presumption that he was thus free-from contributory negligence in that respect, this Court held that whether he was guilty of contributory negligence by reason of his established acts or failures to act, other than those relating to making-proper observation, as he approached and entered the intersection, presented a question of fact for the jury. This Court did not hold in that case that failure to look for a given distance presents a jury question of fact as to contributory negligence. The-pertinent cases cited in Breker are Potter v. Felician *442Sisters Home for Orphans, 281 Mich 101; Campbell v. Osterland, 283 Mich 175; and Rife v. Colestock, 297 Mich 194. In Potter all occupants of both cars involved were killed by the accident or deceased at time of trial. Although this Court did not mention the presumption of freedom from contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff’s driver, who was travelling on the favored highway, there was equally as much reason to do so as in Breleer. This Court did say that there was no evidence that plaintiff’s driver had proceeded heedlessly and stressed that the only evidence on that phase of the case was that she had swerved her car to the right just before the impact, indicating that this constituted evidence from which an inference might be drawn that she had made proper observation and exercised due care to avert the accident, thus leaving the question of her contributory negligence one of fact. In Campbell the favored driver testified that when he was •some 100 feet from the intersection he observed that -defendant’s car had stopped for the through highway; and in Rife it was testified that defendant’s car slowed down momentarily upon approaching the stop sign. Consequently, in both of those cases, as this Court observed in Rife, if plaintiff, on the favored highway, had looked he would have had reason to believe that he was being accorded the right-of-way and that he could proceed in safety; accordingly, a question of fact was presented in each as to whether plaintiff’s failure to maintain a continuing lookout was a proximate cause of the accident rendering plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. Those cases are not in point in the instant case where plaintiff admittedly did not look for the last 100 feet and there is nothing in the record to show, as in those cases, that a proper lookout would have jproved unavailing to avert the accident. The burden *443of making suck, showing rested on plaintiff and was not sustained.
Our attentions are also directed by Mr. Justice Smith to Marrs v. Taylor, 327 Mich 674; Trune v. Grahl, 337 Mich 659; and Soltar v. Anderson, 340 Mich 242. Marrs presented a disputed question of fact as to whether plaintiff’s automobile, travelling on the favored highway, was struck in the intersection or, as plaintiff claimed, after it had passed through it. Under plaintiff’s version of the facts the case called for application of the familiar rule that when the favored driver failed to maintain a proper lookout the question of whether that failure constituted contributory negligence is one of fact rather than law if the collision occurred in that part of the intersection which represented defendant’s wrong side of the road or where plaintiff would not have expected defendant to drive even if he had seen him. Characteristic are the so-called “swerve” cases, in which, at the last moment before the collision, defendant swerved to his left side of the road. The question in such eases is not so much whether plaintiff’s failure to look constituted negligence, but whether such negligence was “contributory”, that is, a proximate cause of the accident; and so it is that in Marrs this Court said (pp 677, 678), “reasonable minds may differ as to whether Mr. Marrs had made proper observations and, if not, whether such negligence, if any, contributed to the accident.” There is nothing in the case at bar to bring it within the “swerve” case exception. In Trune the defendant was on the favored highway. Plaintiff had the burden of showing negligence on defendant’s part. There was no testimony that defendant had failed to maintain a proper lookout. This Court held in effect that failure of defendant to maintain a proper lookout could not be inferred from the mere fact that he failed to stop *444when it became apparent that plaintiff was going to enter the intersection in disregard of the stop sign, inasmuch as defendant, under authority of Arnold v. Krug, supra, was not required to drive in such manner that he could unfailingly stop for every intersection at which a driver approaching from right angles neglected to heed the stop sign. Trune did not involve a situation, as at bar, in which the favored driver admittedly did not look for the last 100 feet. In Soltar this Court held that it was error to charge a jury that negligence may not be inferred from established facts and that such error was prejudicial in that case because plaintiff’s claim that defendant had failed to maintain a proper lookout was dependent for support on the inferences to be drawn from testimony concerning how defendant had operated his automobile. The case presented no question, as here, as to whether a driver on a favored highway may neglect to maintain a proper lookout and escape being held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Recognition of the fact that within the memories of most of us the numbers and speeds of automobiles have increased in fantastic proportions is scarcely persuasive of the conclusion that the need for maintenance of a proper lookout by drivers has decreased. While this Court did say in Arnold v. Krug, supra, 707, that, “The right-of-way accorded to a driver upon a trunk-line highway is something more than the privilege of going through the intersection in advance of a car which reaches it at the same time,” this Court has never held that that “something more” includes the right to proceed into and through the intersection without maintaining a proper lookout. The right-of-way is not an assurance of safety upon which one may absolutely rely, but, on the contrary, he must use due care for his own safety. Kerr v. *445Hayes, supra. As said in Kerns v. Lewis, 246 Mich 423, 428:
“While the law accords the right-of-way, it requires, as well, the exercise of at least ‘horse sense.’ The statute does not authorize one, in approaching a highway crossing, to assume that in all events he may proceed without looking, or, if unable to see, without exercising precaution commensurate with reasonable prudence.”
Lest the quoted language be thought to smack too much of the horse and buggy days with diminished applicability to the present motorized age, it may not be inappropriate to observe that there is an even greater urgency for the exercise of “horse sense,” for eternal vigilance and the maintenance of a constant lookout on the part of today’s drivers of mechanized horsepower than in the days gone by when Old Dobbin was at least reputed to know the way home. A holding that the question of the contributory negligence of a plaintiff who, as here, proceeded for 100 feet without looking again, serene in the assumed assurance of safety afforded by the right-of-way, should be left to the speculations of a jury and escape being branded for what it is as a matter of law seems to me nothing less than an open invitation to recklessness and consequent disaster in a day when traffic and speed make a constant lookout a prime requisite to survival in the race of the quick and the dead.
In conclusion, it is to be noted that there is no allegation in the pleadings nor one shred of evidence in the record to suggest that the through highway on which plaintiff was travelling was a “high-speed, heavy-volume artery of traffic, known as the expressway” or that it was one of Michigan’s “great expressways,” or a “turnpike.”
*446The judgments should be reversed, without a new trial and with costs to defendants.
Carr, C. J., and Reid, J., concurred with Deth-MERS, J.