Legal Opinion

Rowe v. Vander Kolk

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1936No. Docket No. 109, Calendar No. 39,204PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, C. J.

Plaintiff, a guest in defendant’s automobile, seeks to recover damages for personal injuries caused by defendant’s car colliding with the rear end of a truck and semi-trailer traveling in the same direction on a public highway. At the close of plaintiff’s proofs defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was granted. This was on the ground that plaintiff had not offered testimony that defendant was guilty of gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct which caused the accident and, therefore, recovery was barred by the provisions of the so-called guest act. 1 • Comp. Laws 1929, § 4648.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Goss v. OvertonMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
  2. McLone v. BeanMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Grabowski v. SeylerMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Manser v. EderMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Van Blaircum v. CampbellMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Titus v. LonerganMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Mitchell v. WaltersWyoming Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Chapman v. BuderMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
  4. Rogers v. MerrittMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Kocks v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1951

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API