190 Mich. 697 | Mich. | 1916
Plaintiff suffered quite severe injuries by having his hands burned, which he claims were due to the negligence of the defendant. The trial court directed a verdict for defendant, on the ground that plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to his injuries.
It appears that plaintiff owned a Ford car which he had purchased from defendant. It failed to work a short time thereafter, and he took it to defendant’s garage for repairs. The repairs were made, and
There appears to have been little doubt in the mind of the court that defendant was negligent, but he was also impressed that plaintiff was negligent in reaching down into the fire through the finger or lever holes to remove the boards. The question whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence under such circumstances is one upon which reasonable men might differ. Seeing fire proceeding from a point near his gasoline tank would have a tendency to alarm the average motorist. The fact that he had his family and his neighbor’s family in the car would undoubtedly increase his concern. From the fact that he did not choose the most prudent method of extinguishing the fire without injury to himself under such circumstances is not conclusive proof of his contributory negligence. The fact that he took a risk to protect his own and his neighbor’s family from injury is entitled to great -weight in determining whether he was guilty of contributory negligence. Fehnrich v. Railroad Co., 87 Mich. 606 (49 N. W. 890); Milbourne v. Power Sta
We are of the opinion that the question as to whether he acted as an ordinarily prudent man would have acted under similar circumstances was a fair question for the jury, and it should have been submitted to them.
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered.