Legal Opinion

Sherman v. David

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1940No. Docket No. 93, Calendar No. 41,088PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButzel, J.

The question before us is whether defendant was guilty of “gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct” in operating his automobile so as to warrant a recovery by plaintiff for his injuries. 1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 4648 (Stat. Ann. § 9.1446); Naudzius v. Lahr, 253 Mich. 216 (74 A. L. R. 1189, 30 N. C. C. A. 179).

Late in the evening of August 25, 1938, plaintiff, defendant, and three others, left a restaurant in Lapeer to go to a summer home about nine miles away. Plaintiff and another rode in the rumble seat, and defendant and two others sat in the front compartment. Before leaving the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Naudzius v. LahrMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Gibbard v. CursanMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Bobich v. RogersMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Willett v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Goss v. OvertonMichigan Supreme Court · 1934

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Felgner v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Titus v. LonerganMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Teeter v. PugsleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Rinkevich v. CoelingMichigan Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Felgner v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1965

1 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