Court Opinion

ID: 9520343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:37:00.625915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:01.264596
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, J.
(dissenting). This case was tried in the lower court after the effective date of section 3a of Court Rule No 23 (1945).  Previous decisions in connection with motions for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict in so-called “assured clear distance” cases do not, now, necessarily apply, because our adoption of the above-mentioned court rule now places the burden of pleading and proving contributory negligence on the defendant.
The facts in the instant case are adequately set forth in the opinion of Justice Carr, except as to some pertinent excerpts of testimony which will be quoted in this opinion.
. The trial judge granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on his belief plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Plaintiff testified there was no curb on Dix highway at the place he attempted to cross. He stated that he stopped at a point approximately where the curb line would normally be constructed. After looking to the north and seeing cars stopped for the red light at Oakwood boulevard and Dix highway, which intersection was over 300 feet away, he *514then looked to his right, or southerly, and observed a car approaching some distance away. He testified he took about 2 steps and then noticed the car from the south was coming pretty fast. He stopped at that point, about 3 feet off the curb line. After apparently watching the car approaching from the south for a period of time and forming an opinion he did not have time to cross, he looked back toward the north where he saw defendant’s automobile approaching some 20 or 30 feet away. He testified: “I just swing around, have no chance to get up and it ju.st hit my leg and I fall down on right shoulder. X hit pretty hard the road.”
.. James Metcalf, plaintiff’s witness, who was in a position to observe plaintiff, testified a period of time elapsed between the time he saw plaintiff standing in the street and the hearing of braked tires or squealing of tires.
,. James Parke, who was with James Metcalf at the time of the accident, testified:
1 “Q. When was the next time you saw Perry after he left you, if you can recall?
“A. When Metcalf came back out we was talking and I remember of seeing Dave Shuker and Ross Schockly in their tractor pull up by the sidewalk in the driveway and at that time Perry went past in front of the tractor. Then we was talking there and then I looked, like we was approaching the one driveway and I looked out and Perry was standing-in the street and then I turned back, I don’t know whether one or the other of us said something but anyhow we started to talk again and then I heard the brakes squeal on the car and that is when I looked to see where it was coming from.”
Defendant Theodore Center testified as follows:
“Q. How many steps had he taken after you first saw him before the impact?
*515“A. How many steps had he taken after I first saw him?
“Q. That is right.
“A. I don’t know how many steps. He took from the curb approximately 2-1/2, maybe 3 steps into the street as I saw him walking.”
Later the defendant testified as follows:
“Q. And the impact took place, you think, how many feet from what would be the curb line?
“A. About 3 or 4 feet.
“Q. Three or 4 feet. You said he took 2 or 3 steps ?
“A. Yes.”
Defendant further testified he could not turn his car to the left “because there was a car right next to me.”
Stanley Oziem, the driver of the car which was following defendant’s vehicle, was called as a witness on behalf of defendant and testified under cross examination as follows:
“Q. Were there any other cars in front of you besides this car that was involved in the accident?
“A. No, sir. * * *
“Q. Those 2 cars were the only 2 cars that were then traveling in a southerly direction?
“A. Yes, sir.”
Keeping in mind that the west half of Dix highway was 20 feet wide and also that on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the testimony must be construed most favorably to plaintiff (Burgdorf v. Holme-Shaw, 356 Mich 45; Cole v. Austin, 321 Mich 548; Alley v. Klotz, 320 Mich 521), it appears with plaintiff standing not more than 3 feet from the curb line, in plain view of defendant, observing the traffic from both directions, reasonable men might differ as to whether he was guilty of negligence, particularly when defendant had 17 feet to the center of the highway in which he could have *516turned to avoid hitting plaintiff. It would appear that plaintiff in standing within 3 feet of a curb line on a highway with 17 feet of road to the center line in front of him was not negligent as a matter of law. Surely a question of fact existed for the jury, as-was admitted by the trial court at the time of the court’s denial of motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff’s proofs and at the conclusion of the trial of the case.
If an issue of fact is presented for jury determination,- a, judgment notwithstanding the verdict cannot be entered. Wright v. Barron, 318 Mich 409. There was a conflict in the testimony of the witnesses-as to how long plaintiff was standing 3 feet from what would be the curb line. The jurors had a right to believe defendant when he said he was only 25 tó 30 feet away from plaintiff when he first saw him ; or they had the right to draw the inference that defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care, ought to have seen him earlier. They might infer from the testimony which was in conflict, and from the physical facts, that defendant was driving faster than he testified. They might well have found that defendant,- in -the exercise of ordinary care, even under his own testimony as to when he saw plaintiff, might have turned to the left onto the 17 feet of his half of the highway and avoided the accident. The jurors might have found that a person exercising ordinary care under the same or similar circumstances might stand no more than 3 feet from what normally would be the curb line on a 40-foot highway to observe the traffic and form an opinion as to whether he could cross. If they so found, and it appears by the verdict they did, defendant has not carried the burden of proving plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. These questions were for the jury to determine. This they did under proper instructions from. the. court.
*517The trial court was in error in granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judgment entered below should be set aside and vacated and the verdict of the jury should be reinstated. Plaintiff should have costs taxed for both the trial court and this Court.
Black, J., concurred with Kavanagh, J.