210 N.W. 205 | Mich. | 1926
The automobiles of the parties were in collision at an intersection of the highways. Plaintiff was injured. Defendants, when plaintiff rested his case, had directed verdict, and he brings error. The question is, Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law? Plaintiff was driving south on a trunk line highway. Defendants were driving east on a cross road, not a trunk line. The view at the intersection was ample and unobstructed. The cars were approaching the intersection at the same time. Plaintiff had in mind at the time that he had the right of way. We quote:
"When motor vehicles approach an intersection of a State trunk line highway and any other highway at the same time, the vehicle proceeding on the State highway trunk line shall have the right of way." Act No. 96, Pub. Acts 1923, § 5a.
Plaintiff saw the other car. He applied brakes and reduced speed. Defendants did likewise. Plaintiff, observing defendants' car, and thinking that his right *276 of way was to be accorded him, increased speed to cross the intersection. Defendants did likewise. Each thought, apparently, that the other would give way. The collision resulted.
The opinion of the trial judge that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law is based, chiefly, on the case of Geeck v. Luckenbill,
Judgment reversed. New trial granted. Costs of this court to appellant.
BIRD, C.J., and SHARPE, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, and MCDONALD, JJ., concurred. *277