History
  • No items yet
midpage
Houck v. Carigan
102 N.W.2d 191
Mich.
1960
Check Treatment
Kelly, J.

Plaintiff-appellant submits 1 question, namely:

“Did tbе trial court err in holding defendant free of negligence as a matter of law and in directing a verdict of no cause for аction!”

Plaintiff, a 9-year-old girl, was injured by coming in contact with defеndant’s car. The impact was on the side of the car in front оf the right hand door.

Plaintiff was crossing Genesee avenue, in the .сity of Saginaw, 175 feet north of the intersection of ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‍Genesee and Holland street. She was not crossing on a crosswalk and was proceeding from west to east.

Genesee avenuе at this point is a 5-lane highway, each lane being 10 feet in width; 3 lanеs being .designated for southbound traffic and 2 lanes for northbound traffic.

Defendant was driving south on Genesee in the1 southbound lane closest to the center of the street, the same being the third lane east of the curb from which plaintiff- started on her way across Genesee from west to east.

As plaintiff stood on the west сurb of Genesee,.accompanied by her 2 brothers, 6 and 10 years of age, there was a line ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‍of southbound cars, halted and waiting for the red light to change at the intersection of Genеsee and Holland.

A lady motorist, who had stopped her cаr waiting for the light to change, signaled to plaintiff to cross Genеsee, and plaintiff’s testimony as to her crossing is as follows:

“After we got the candy, we left the drug-store and walked straight out toward thе road.
*226 “Q. Now when you got to the edge of the ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‍road, were thеre any cars there?
“A. Yes, they were lined up for the red light.
“Q. What did you do, or what happened then?
“A. We were all waiting along beside of each other and this lady motioned for us to go across and thеn my brother said he would beat us home and we knew he would beat us аnd he started running and we started walking out.
“Q. Did your brother go all the way across Gene-see?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Which brother was that ?
“A. Charles.
“Q. You say you started to walk across?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Were you in front of or behind the car where the lady motioned for you to go across?
“A. In front of.
“Q. Was that in front of the drug store?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Nоw then, when you started to walk across Genesee after thе lady motioned ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‍to you, did you see .any cars coming along in the middle lane of the road?
“A. No, we didn’t.
“Q. What happened then?
"A. I don’t know.
“Q. Were you struck then by the car?
“A. I don’t remember.
“Q. Is that the place where you were hurt?
“A. Yes.”

Defendant testified he did not see the children; that he first knew something was wrong when he heard somebody from the curb yell “look out”; that he immediately applied his brakes and the impact occurred about 4 feet from the front оf his car at a point near the handle of the right front door; that he stopped his car within 5 seconds and did not travel more than 6 feet after hearing the cry “look out.”

*227 Officer Jambor, who investigated the accident, said that he tested the brakes of defendant’s vehicle and found them in good condition. He also testified that the skid marks left by defendant’s car were 2 feet 4 inches in length.

The accident occurred on the main thoroughfare in the city of Saginaw. This street' is also the route of highway US-10. The accident happened ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌‌‍at 5:18 p.m. when traffic was at its heaviest. Dеfendant was on his way home from work. He was driving at a legal speed, in- the proper lane.

Plaintiff, attempting to cross in the middle of the block, suddenly darted into the side of defendant’s car. Dеfendant had not seen plaintiff and almost immediately stopрed his car after hearing the shouted warning.

There is no evidenсe of defendant’s negligence, and the court properly directed a verdict of no cause of action. Affirmed.

Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, Smith, Black, Edwards, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred. Souris, J., took no part in the decision of this ease.

Case Details

Case Name: Houck v. Carigan
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 11, 1960
Citation: 102 N.W.2d 191
Docket Number: Docket 88, Calendar 47,836
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In