*1 480

SKRZYCKI v. RITCHIE. Highway Sleep. Nighttime—Center — Automobiles — stopped plaintiff, motorist who had for southbound Verdict midnight just pave- shortly of center of 40-foot west after slightly on east side turned toward his ment and held, by northbound run into of road when against by the over- supported and not substantial being testimony, de- whelming weight of testified road, hit side of partly fendant was at least west sleeping he had been right tiff’s front fender and admitted lights. and did not see Dethmers, J., dissenting. Wayne; (Arthur), Appeal J. Sub- Webster April (Docket No. 10,1952. No. Calendar 25, mitted 45,384.) May 1952. 16,

Decided by Skrzysld against Ritchie Case Edward William injuries personal acci- in sustained automobile for plaintiff. judgment Defend- for dent. Verdict appeals. Affirmed. ant Dwyer, plaintiff. Dennis H. for for defendant. Barnard, Edward N. brought defend- suit

Reid, J. Plaintiff injuries damages personal and for to for automobile ant recover caused a collision were automobile and defendant’s defendant which for Points Heabnotes References 657, 322, 688. Jur, Automobiles 5 Am § § v. Ritchie. jury involved. The case was tried before a which plaintiff. rendered a verdict in favor of From the judgment appeals. entered on the verdict, defendant appeal

The sole *2 raised the on is whether great weight the verdict was the of the evi- dence. midnight, plaintiff

On June 8,1949, after was driv- ing southerly Telegraph Taylor township, on in road Wayne county,. Michigan. paved portion The of Telegraph point road at the is 40 feet wide with tiff’s tiff proached plain- a median line. A led to premises easterly Telegraph road. Plain- going southerly ap- testified that as he was point nearly opposite driveway, his “took over the toward middle the of road” and start- putting stoplight signal ed his on and off to some go by right transit trucks to on him the and to indi- plaintiff, going cate that he, to make a left turn stop. had come to a He testified that the front his atwas least a foot to a foot and a half highway. west of the center line of the The wheels and his car were turned to the east or southeast a position. little, and he there remained in that He testified that there was no one in the car with him traveling 2 easterly vehicles north on the portion Telegraph passed by. road

Plaintiff further testified that after the 2 cars had passed plaintiff, a third car, car, defendant’s travel- ing north, came to the of collision, a few sec- onds and that later, was out in the lights coming center of right the road, at got top tiff, and “he on of me and he turned to the right and that is when the crash came;” that he, plaintiff, first saw the car in the center of the road away, 500 about or 600 feet a considerable distance. It was in traveling partly the center of the road the lane east side and the lane on the west highway. straddling line the middle

side, Plaintiff testified: highway [defend- “Q. half of the was this Which vehicle you? approached

ant’s] on the west road, It on the west half of the “A. was side.”

Plaintiff further testified: up [defendant’s car] came close “Q. When it your vehicle, what did it do? “A. It made a turn to east.

“Q. And when it did that what occurred? the crash me and it collided with “A. That is when everything black.” went occurred and it seemed the front of defendant’s Plaintiff further testified right right front car, car hit the front of right radiator half fender, right headlight, impact cars went both after *3 stop came to a about about 100feet 100 feet to the of his “We were and got plaintiff out and that after north, lady, say to Ritchie a he heard defendant car, sleeping.” all is corroborated Some of living with his father who was son, that his in the 12:30 that about and who testified mother, morning told came and 1949, mother 8, of June his he arose father in an accident him that his flashlight immediately and saw that he took a northerly of the 120feet father’s car about his tiff’s to ascertain that he had occasion dropped that had dirt or debris that there was pavement the center of the west side any highway, whatever on no skid marks that saw place part of the collision. near the the road Skrzycki, that testified wife, Plaintiff’s Catherine she went collision, noise of the heard the when she impact point point of the and saw a near out to neared there was Ritchie and as she the defendant v. Ritchie. shouting, you doing man “What the hell were up there?” and that she walked to him and said happened you, “What Mister?” and he said, “Lady, standing the man was in the center of the road.”

Defendant Ritchie on cross-examination testified, [plaintiff’s car] If “Q. that car did make a turn it physical you your knowledge is a that the fact and know to headlights also have turned, would would they not ? They “A. would. you lights turning “Q. And never noticed those so they your showedinto car? “A. I did not.”

It tois be noted connection with these answers by Ritchie, that defendant Ritchie had testified that impact, plaintiff’s as he neared the denly car sud- westerly came from the of the side path into the of his and that the car last defend- he, lights coming oppo- ant Ritchie, of the saw straight going site direction, car was headed south and that Ritchie had “Well, further said, [plaintiff’s car] apparently gotten had not on, straight over 20 or 30 feet ahead and cut in.” It will thus he seen that there was substantial tes-, timony supporting plaintiff’s theory within the meaning of the case of Werker v. McGrain, Mich saying 291. In that there was substantial testi mony supporting plaintiff’s claim as to the manner causing of of the accident, we still have in mind that defendant on the stand testified that at a time impossible prevent when it was for defendant to plaintiff suddenly accident, drove his car from the *4 westerly path side of the into the de of fendant’s car. that police, In that connection we further note Lutz,

witness Carl W. detective with the State at stationed Plat Rock, testified that he re- ceived the word of accident in about 1 a.m. speedily place to the and went of accident and plaintiff (plaintiff) go- that ing said saw vehicle [waited] north slowed and for down wanted go by that vehicle to and started to make his turn into the and that that he was struck at person time. But Lutz witness also testified that the who told him what we have recited also said that he coming plaintiff was was not work, home from his whereas

coming home from he was on vacation work, returning greased, having and was his car person coming was was who home defendant jury from work. well have Hence, could disre- garded testimony plaintiff that Lutz’s admitted cut- ting in ahead of defendant that the of- basis party speaking. ficer misidentified the testimony by We that also note there a was short- reporter plaintiff hand that took the statement of plaintiff June 28, stated: lights “Q: You didn’t see the set in the of you? struck “A. No. I could see cars the line. It down seemed They by through 2 cars were almost side side. came just supposed every- I seconds went few thing went black. you?

“Q. You the car that hit didn’t see at all “A. No.” pain

Plaintiff claims that he when the was stenographer. taken statement was photographs Defendant offered taken at the scene (as at a time when the collision cars they they testified) standing stood when were still came a rest after the first claims collision. Defendant

there marks car. were skid back for a the skid marks are but few feet back However, any photo- far as revealed in car so graph an utter in the and there is want *5 Ritchie. v. leading any from marks skid there were case that car back to car or the collision. Freight Com- Consolidated case of Blair v. The therefore pany, defendant, is cited 327 Mich Case, controlling In the Blair case. the instant not testimony photographs of witnesses there were pavement showing marks on the were skid that there shaped leading' from the crescent after the collision scrape pavement truck and the overturned on the to shaped from the same crescent marks also skid scrape Blair, the the car of on the to showing is marks The as to skid tiff in that case. showing in in the Blair different Case so be said Blair cannot that the Case the instant case to be authority controlling case. an in the instant testimony Notwithstanding herein and cited testimony by defendant, and relied on other cited sup- would which there is still substantial port the verdict. against say the over- the verdict is cannot

We testimony. judgment weight whelming The plaintiff. appealed from affirmed. Costs is J., C. Btjtzel, Bushnell, North, Carr, JJ., concurred J. Boyles, Reid, with Sharpe, (dissenting). Believing it to be J. Dethmers, weight overwhelming of the I evidence, am for reversal.