Malicote v. Debondt

Michigan Supreme Court

Malicote v. Debondt

275 N.W. 614, 281 Mich. 650

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1937

DocketDocket No. 81, Calendar No. 39,624.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 275 N.W. 614 (Malicote v. Debondt) 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

Malicote v. Debondt, 275 N.W. 614, 281 Mich. 650 (Mich. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

The parties to this suit had attended a dance and were coming home in defendant’s auto *651 mobile which ho was driving. It was in the small hours of the morning and the defendant, driver of the automobile, fell asleep, lost control thereof, and the automobile ran across the car tracks and he was awakened. Plaintiffs insisted on getting out of the automobile and taking a taxicab which was near. Defendant did not stop the automobile, said he was all right, would not let them get out, but said he had started to take them home and intended to do so. He drove several blocks thereafter when his head dropped and he fell asleep a second time, lost control of the automobile, and it struck with great force a post of a safety zone and plaintiffs were injured. They began suit under the guest act and at the conclusion of the trial, and after a charge with which no faiüt is found, recovered verdicts against defendant which the court on motion non obstante veredicto set aside, relying on Perkins v. Roberts, 272 Mich. 545, and rendered judgments for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

There was sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury and support the verdicts within the rule established by Manser v. Eder, 263 Mich. 107.

Judgments reversed and the case remanded for entry of judgments for plaintiffs on the verdicts, with costs of both courts.

Dead, C. J., and North, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, and Chandler, JJ., concurred.

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

Potter, J.

The parties to this suit had attended a dance and were coming home in defendant’s auto *651 mobile which ho was driving. It was in the small hours of the morning and the defendant, driver of the automobile, fell asleep, lost control thereof, and the automobile ran across the car tracks and he was awakened. Plaintiffs insisted on getting out of the automobile and taking a taxicab which was near. Defendant did not stop the automobile, said he was all right, would not let them get out, but said he had started to take them home and intended to do so. He drove several blocks thereafter when his head dropped and he fell asleep a second time, lost control of the automobile, and it struck with great force a post of a safety zone and plaintiffs were injured. They began suit under the guest act and at the conclusion of the trial, and after a charge with which no faiüt is found, recovered verdicts against defendant which the court on motion non obstante veredicto set aside, relying on Perkins v. Roberts, 272 Mich. 545, and rendered judgments for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

There was sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury and support the verdicts within the rule established by Manser v. Eder, 263 Mich. 107.

Judgments reversed and the case remanded for entry of judgments for plaintiffs on the verdicts, with costs of both courts.

Dead, C. J., and North, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, and Chandler, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 N.W. 614, 281 Mich. 650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malicote-v-debondt-mich-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack