We conclude that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. See Greimel v. Fischer, supra; Sorenson v. Wegert, supra; Rattner v. Lieber, 294 Mich. 447; Boswell v. Docsa, 285 Mich. 559; Murner v. Thorpe, 284 Mich. 331; Thomas v. Parsons, 278 Mich. 276; Wolfe v. Marks, 277 Mich. 154; Schneider v. Draper, 276 Mich. 259; Lucas v. Lindner, 276 Mich. 704. The judgment for defendant is reversed and the case remanded for entry of judgment for plaintiff on the jury's verdict of $3,500.

Our conclusion that the facts presented a jury question finds ample support in previous decisions where somewhat analogous sets of circumstances are to be found. See Boswell v. Docsa, 285 Mich. 559; Thomas v. Parsons, 278 Mich. 276; Rattner v. Lieber, 294 Mich. 447. Appellant also contends that the court erred in denying her motion for a new trial because the verdict was against the great and overwhelming weight of the evidence, and because such verdict was contrary to the law and instructions of the court.

Bobich v. Rogers, supra; Mogill v. Resnick, 263 Mich. 103; Fink v. Dasier, supra; Schlacter v. Harbin, 273 Mich. 465. Gallagher's statement, "Watch me give them a real scare," does not establish the fact that he was driving in a wanton and reckless manner. The case at bar is readily distinguishable from Boswell v. Docsa, 285 Mich. 559, where the driver while in great anger, cursing the occupants of his car, intentionary swerved his car from side to side, driving from 80 to 85 miles an hour. The fact that a defendant's car was swaying, zigzagging from side to side, straddling the center, does not constitute gross negligence.