Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Automobile accident

University of Michigan Law School

Transportation Law

1949

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Practice And Procedure-Joint Tortfeasors-Cross Claim Against Co-Party, James F. Gordy Apr 1949

Practice And Procedure-Joint Tortfeasors-Cross Claim Against Co-Party, James F. Gordy

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff was driving his team on the highway, closely followed by the auto of defendant Wood, which was in turn followed by that of defendant Perry. Perry, driving at a high rate of speed, collided with the rear of Wood's auto, causing it to collide with plaintiff's wagon. Plaintiff sued both defendants to recover for damage to himself and his wagon, alleging negligence in the conduct of each. Defendants answered, each denying his own negligence. Wood interposed a cross claim against Perry, alleging Perry's negligence to be the sole cause of the collision, and demanded judgment for damage to his …


Criminal Law-Requisite Mental Element In Criminal Assault, Charles Hansen Feb 1949

Criminal Law-Requisite Mental Element In Criminal Assault, Charles Hansen

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was driving his car after dark at a speed greatly in excess of that prescribed by a local ordinance. While proceeding in this fashion, the car overtook and struck a bicycle, severely injuring a passenger thereon. From a conviction of criminal assault of the passenger, defendant appealed. Held, affirmed. The necessary intent to injure a specific passenger of a vehicle may be inferred from the recklessness evidenced by driving at night at a speed greatly exceeding the statutory limit. Wellons v. State, (Ga. App. 1948) 48 S.E. (2d) 925.


Negligence--Proximate Cause--Effect Of Non-Registration Of Automobile, Richard B. Gushée Feb 1949

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 …