Hansel v. Hawkins

Michigan Supreme Court

Hansel v. Hawkins

40 N.W.2d 109, 326 Mich. 177, 1949 Mich. LEXIS 279

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 7, 1949

DocketDocket 33, Calendar 44,242

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 40 N.W.2d 109 (Hansel v. Hawkins) 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

Hansel v. Hawkins, 40 N.W.2d 109, 326 Mich. 177, 1949 Mich. LEXIS 279 (Mich. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Dethmers, J.

Automobiles driven by plaintiff and defendant collided at or near an intersection, causing damages to both parties. The case went to trial on plaintiff’s declaration, defendant’s cross-declaration, and their respective answers. The jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action as to either party and plaintiff appeals.

At defendant’s request the court instructed the jury concerning the so-called “sudden emergency rule.” The charge failed to apprise the jury that a party is entitled to the benefit of that rule only if the emergency occurs through no fault or negligence of his own. Such failure we held to constitute reversible error in Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. Marvin, 313 Mich 528, in which, as here, the testimony was conflicting as to how and why the accident happened and in which the instruction as to sudden emergency, quoted in our opinion there, was almost identical to the one given here. To the same effect, see Walker v. Rebeuhr, 255 Mich 204; Lagassee v. Quick, 273 Mich 295; Anderson v. Bliss, 281 Mich 323; Murner *179 v. Thorpe, 284 Mich 331. Defendant contends that plaintiff may not now object to the instruction as given because she made no request to charge on this point. Such is not the rule. Pierson v. Smith, 211 Mich 292. Plaintiff’s other claims on appeal we deem without merit.

The judgment of no cause for action in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff is reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff.

Sharpe, C. J., and Btjshnell, Boyles, Reid, North, Btjtzel, and Carr, JJ., concurred.

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

Dethmers, J.

Automobiles driven by plaintiff and defendant collided at or near an intersection, causing damages to both parties. The case went to trial on plaintiff’s declaration, defendant’s cross-declaration, and their respective answers. The jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action as to either party and plaintiff appeals.

At defendant’s request the court instructed the jury concerning the so-called “sudden emergency rule.” The charge failed to apprise the jury that a party is entitled to the benefit of that rule only if the emergency occurs through no fault or negligence of his own. Such failure we held to constitute reversible error in Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. Marvin, 313 Mich 528, in which, as here, the testimony was conflicting as to how and why the accident happened and in which the instruction as to sudden emergency, quoted in our opinion there, was almost identical to the one given here. To the same effect, see Walker v. Rebeuhr, 255 Mich 204; Lagassee v. Quick, 273 Mich 295; Anderson v. Bliss, 281 Mich 323; Murner *179 v. Thorpe, 284 Mich 331. Defendant contends that plaintiff may not now object to the instruction as given because she made no request to charge on this point. Such is not the rule. Pierson v. Smith, 211 Mich 292. Plaintiff’s other claims on appeal we deem without merit.

The judgment of no cause for action in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff is reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff.

Sharpe, C. J., and Btjshnell, Boyles, Reid, North, Btjtzel, and Carr, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 N.W.2d 109, 326 Mich. 177, 1949 Mich. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansel-v-hawkins-mich-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack