Bennett v. Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Co.

82 N.W. 518, 123 Mich. 692, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 894
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 24, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 82 N.W. 518 (Bennett v. Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bennett v. Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Co., 82 N.W. 518, 123 Mich. 692, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 894 (Mich. 1900).

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Plaintiff attempts to excuse his failure to look to the west by saying that he “heard a noise seemingly coming from the right. I thought the noise indicated that a street car was coming from the east.” He knew that cars were liable to come from either direction at any moment. A glance, occupying scarcely a second, at a distance of 28 feet from the track, would have shown him the car, and given him ample time either to dismount or to turn his wheel in safety. He testified that he could turn in safety in 6 to 8 feet. He had 16 feet from the curb, and 28 feet from the building line. He was in fact on the track before he saw the car, when it was only 5 to 6 feet distant. It is a matter of common knowledge that waves of sound are diverted when striking buildings, and in approaching tracks situated as these were, therefore, one could not tell with certainty from which direction a car was approach[695]*695ing until he passed the line of the buildings. In fact, there was no car coming from the east, and it is not improbable that the noise he heard was that of this car. It was his duty to look both ways, and there is no sufficient reason shown why he did not. McGee v. Railway Co., 102 Mich. 107 (60 N. W. 293, 26 L. R. A. 300, 47 Am. St. Rep. 507); Mine v. Railway Co., 115 Mich. 204 (73 N. W. 116); Doherty v. Railway Co., 118 Mich. 209 (76 N. W. 377); McCarthy v. Railway Co., 120 Mich. 400 (79 N. W. 631); Lau v. Railroad Co., 120 Mich. 115 (79 N. W. 13).

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger, Inc
542 N.W.2d 310 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1995)
Amedeo v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co.
183 N.W. 929 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1921)
Stevenson v. Detroit United Railway
132 N.W. 451 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Cardinal v. Houghton County Street Railway Co.
130 N.W. 627 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Smith v. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Co.
99 N.W. 15 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1904)
Plant v. Heraty
92 N.W. 284 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Merritt v. Foote
87 N.W. 262 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Walker v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
51 L.R.A. 632 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 N.W. 518, 123 Mich. 692, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-detroit-citizens-street-railway-co-mich-1900.