Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Transportation Law
Evidence - Dead Man's Statute - Interpretation Of "Transaction", Howard N. Nemerovski S.Ed.
Evidence - Dead Man's Statute - Interpretation Of "Transaction", Howard N. Nemerovski S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile which collided with one driven by defendant's intestate. Both drivers were killed, and plaintiff sued defendant, administrator of intestate's estate, for personal injuries, alleging negligence. There were no other eye-witnesses to the collision, and the trial court, relying upon the Alabama dead man's statute, would not permit plaintiff to testify to any of the details or circumstances of the accident, or even to the fact that she had been involved in an accident with an automobile driven by the decedent. The jury found for defendant. On appeal, held, reversed. Plaintiff, passenger in …
Evidence-Presumptions-Plaintiff's Res Ipsa Loquitur Against Defendants Presumption Of Due Care, Bernard A. Petrie S.Ed.
Evidence-Presumptions-Plaintiff's Res Ipsa Loquitur Against Defendants Presumption Of Due Care, Bernard A. Petrie S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff sued for injuries resulting when an automobile which defendant was driving and in which plaintiff was sleeping left the highway. There was evidence that defendant suffered retrograde amnesia and could not recall the circumstances of the accident. The court, instructing on res ipsa loquitur for plaintiff, told the jury that it might infer negligence from the fact that the automobile inexplicably left the highway. The court also instructed that, if the jury believed that defendant suffered a loss of memory, defendant was presumed to have exercised due care. Verdict for defendant. Plaintiff contended that instruction on the presumption of …
Negligence--Proximate Cause--Effect Of Non-Registration Of Automobile, Richard B. Gushée
Negligence--Proximate Cause--Effect Of Non-Registration Of Automobile, Richard B. Gushée
Michigan Law Review
Defendant X owned a non-registered automobile which was parked on a public way by defendant Y, an agent of X. The keys were left in the car in violation of a statute. Later in the same day the car was stolen. Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured by the thief's negligent operation of the car. In an action to recover for the injury, a verdict was directed for defendants. On appeal, held, affirmed. As a matter of law, defendant's action in allowing a non-registered automobile containing its keys to remain on a public way was not the proximate …