Milbourne v. Jongeward

Michigan Court of Appeals

Milbourne v. Jongeward

184 N.W.2d 477, 28 Mich. App. 494, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1210

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 4, 1970

DocketDocket No. 8386

StatusPublished

This text of 184 N.W.2d 477 (Milbourne v. Jongeward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Milbourne v. Jongeward, 184 N.W.2d 477, 28 Mich. App. 494, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1210 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, as administratrix of her deceased son’s estate, brought this action against the defendants for damages resulting from his death in an automobile accident on May 2, 1966. The deceased was a passenger in an automobile driven by William S. Bullard. Bullard ran a stop sign and struck an automobile driven by defendant Robert H. Jongeward, Jr., and owned by defendant Robert H. Jongeward, Sr., which was travelling on a through [495]*495street at 25 miles per hour in a 30 mile-per-hour zone. The accident occurred about 8:45 p.m. It was dark. The pavements were dry. The headlights on both vehicle were operating. There were no skid marks. Plaintiff claims that the defendant driver was negligent in failing to take evasive action to avoid the accident, citing McGuire v. Rabaut (1958), 354 Mich 230, for the applicable law.

This was a nonjury trial. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence and a judgment of no cause of action was entered. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied and she appeals as of right.

The trial judge’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, G-CR 1963, 517.1. His application of the pertinent legal principles complies with the law as stated in McGuire v. Rabaut, supra. The trial court’s opinion reads in part:

“It is my opinion that the plaintiff’s theory that the defendant-driver was negligent is nothing more than conjecture. The court cannot guess or speculate as to how the accident happened and that is what is being asked of the court here. Assuming that defendant could have seen the plaintiff-vehicle, there is no showing when it became obvious or should have become obvious that the other car was going to contest his right of way. There is also no showing what defendant could have done nor distance he had in which to take action when this became obvious.

“There is nothing to show that defendant had sufficient time to stop nor that by trying to stop, he could have avoided the accident.”

Affirmed, costs to defendants.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, as administratrix of her deceased son’s estate, brought this action against the defendants for damages resulting from his death in an automobile accident on May 2, 1966. The deceased was a passenger in an automobile driven by William S. Bullard. Bullard ran a stop sign and struck an automobile driven by defendant Robert H. Jongeward, Jr., and owned by defendant Robert H. Jongeward, Sr., which was travelling on a through [495]*495street at 25 miles per hour in a 30 mile-per-hour zone. The accident occurred about 8:45 p.m. It was dark. The pavements were dry. The headlights on both vehicle were operating. There were no skid marks. Plaintiff claims that the defendant driver was negligent in failing to take evasive action to avoid the accident, citing McGuire v. Rabaut (1958), 354 Mich 230, for the applicable law.

This was a nonjury trial. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence and a judgment of no cause of action was entered. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied and she appeals as of right.

The trial judge’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, G-CR 1963, 517.1. His application of the pertinent legal principles complies with the law as stated in McGuire v. Rabaut, supra. The trial court’s opinion reads in part:

“It is my opinion that the plaintiff’s theory that the defendant-driver was negligent is nothing more than conjecture. The court cannot guess or speculate as to how the accident happened and that is what is being asked of the court here. Assuming that defendant could have seen the plaintiff-vehicle, there is no showing when it became obvious or should have become obvious that the other car was going to contest his right of way. There is also no showing what defendant could have done nor distance he had in which to take action when this became obvious.

“There is nothing to show that defendant had sufficient time to stop nor that by trying to stop, he could have avoided the accident.”

Affirmed, costs to defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.W.2d 477, 28 Mich. App. 494, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milbourne-v-jongeward-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack