Nabozny v. Hamil
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentBlack, J.
This Court in recent years * has reaffirmed devotion to Mr. Justice Cooley’s enduring aphorism that, “As a general rule, it cannot be doubted that the question of negligence is a question of fact and not of law.” (Detroit & Milwaukee R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich 99, 118.) The question of negligence in the case before us comes within that rule, and, so I vote to reverse this judgment for plaintiff, same having been entered upon determination by the court that the defendant driver was guilty of actionable negligence.
The stated general rule was considered at length by Mr. Justice Cooley in…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Kaminski v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
- Carver v. Detroit & Saline Plank Road Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1886
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Simerka v. PridemoreMichigan Supreme Court · 1968
- Krzysiak v. HintonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
- Cooke v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
- Cooke v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
- Cooke v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.