Hill v. Lappley
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent; Barton, J., presiding. Case by Catherine Hill against Fred Lappley for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant on a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error. Testimony for the plaintiff tends to prove that she was 77 years old in July, 1917. She lives in the country north of the city of Grand Rapids, and September 30, 1916, she went to the city with a neighbor in a Ford auto truck, driven by one George De Groot.
Read the full summary
Error to Kent; Barton, J., presiding. Case by Catherine Hill against Fred Lappley for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant on a directed verdict. Plaintiff brings error. Testimony for the plaintiff tends to prove that she was 77 years old in July, 1917. She lives in the country north of the city of Grand Rapids, and September 30, 1916, she went to the city with a neighbor in a Ford auto truck, driven by one George De Groot. There was a board box, cut out at the rear end, and a step to use in getting into and out of the truck. There was a seat on each side, passengers facing each other.…
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
(after stating the facts). Usually a country highway is not, as a railroad crossing is, a *373place of danger, to be approached and traversed only after looking and listening for coming vehicles. Usually, when persons having an equal right to use it come into collision' and one is injured and brings suit, the question of his due care and of the defendant’s failure to take due care are questions for a jury.
The right of plaintiff to walk over, to cross the highway is clear, as is the right of defendant to drive his motorcar over it. Is it so clear that plaintiff failed to take due care for her own…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Budnick v. PetersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Church v. StoldtMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Neeb v. JacobsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Jones v. ArmstrongMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Deal v. SnyderMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.