Plaintiff, suing as administratrix of the estate of Hilda Stephens, deceased, recovered a judgment for damages arising out of an intersection collision of defendant's automobile and the car in which the deceased was riding as a guest passenger. The sole question here is whether the deceased's host was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, which negligence would bar recovery under the rule of imputed negligence ( Carey v. De Rose, 286 Mich. 321). The collision occurred at the intersection of Second street and Lane avenue in the city of Grand Rapids on the 25th day of February, 1939, at about 11 p. m. The two streets are of equal importance, and there were no stop signs or signal apparatus to control the traffic.

"We have repeatedly held that one must look before entering a place of possible danger, such as crossing an intersection, and maintain observation while crossing." Carey v De Rose, 286 Mich. 321, 323[; 282 N.W. 165 (1938)].

"By her own admission, plaintiff did not make any estimate of defendant's speed, did not know how far from the intersection she was when she first observed defendant, and, of most significance, made no further observation of defendant after her initial observation and proceeded into the uncontrolled intersection, though defendant had the statutory right of way, culminating in the resultant collision as the front of her car crossed into the southeast quadrant. "Carey v De Rose, 286 Mich. 321; 282 N.W. 165 (1938); Beers v Arnot, 308 Mich. 604; 14 N.W.2d 511 (1944); MacDonald v Skornia, 322 Mich. 370; 34 N.W.2d 4 (1948); Ayers v Andary, 301 Mich. 418; 3 N.W.2d 328 (1942). "The court, therefore, finds in favor of defendant, and a judgment of no cause of action is ordered with costs to be taxed."

"He must be held to have seen what he should have seen, which there was nothing to prevent him from seeing and if * * * he * * * looked * * * and did not see what was plainly to be seen * * * he was guilty of contributory negligence which would bar plaintiff's recovery." Carey v. De Rose, 286 Mich. 321, 282 N.W. 165. "All drivers of vehicles on a public highway are required by law to keep a vigilant lookout ahead so as to avoid, if reasonably possible, a collision with any other vehicle or person lawfully upon such highway.

In Malone v. Vining, 313 Mich. 315, 321, this Court indicated definite rules that should be observed by a pedestrian undertaking to cross a street or highway, such rules involving the making of proper observations before crossing, the continuance of such observations while crossing, and in general the exercise of the degree of care that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would observe under like circumstances. In stating such rules the Court cited with approval Pearce v. Rodell, 283 Mich. 19, 37; Carey v. DeRose, 286 Mich. 321, 323; Sonfilian v. Wiedman, 291 Mich. 697, 700; Slone v. Ambrose, supra, and other prior decisions. Malone v. Vining has been repeatedly cited and followed by this Court.

Willis v. Schlangenhauf, 188 A. 700, 701, 703. He must be held to have seen what he should have seen which there was nothing to prevent him from seeing and if he looked and did not see what was plainly to be seen he was guilty of contributory negligence which would bar plaintiff's recovery. Carey v. DeRose, 286 Mich, 321, 282 N.W. 165; Campbell v. Kozera, et al (Cal.) 63 F. Supp. 251. 1. APPEAL AND ERROR. HOW RULE ON DIRECTED VERDICT APPLIES IN CONTESTED CASES. On appeal from order directing verdict in favor of defendant at close of plaintiff's evidence, court will accept as true, evidence in favor of plaintiff together with such inferences as might reasonably be drawn therefrom, but such rule applies in contested case only when both parties have presented evidence in substantial conflict and triers of fact have resolved conflict in favor of plaintiff.

"`We have repeatedly held that one must look before entering a place of possible danger, such as crossing an intersection, and maintain observation while crossing." Carey v. De Rose, 286 Mich. 321, 323. * * * "`In many cases we have held that one is not free from contributory negligence who observes an automobile coming on the intersecting street and then proceeds to cross without giving further heed to the oncoming vehicle until the instant before or at the time of collision.' Sonfilian v. Wiedman, 291 Mich. 697, 700."

He must take such care for his own safety as a reasonable, careful, prudent person would do under similar circumstances.' "`We have repeatedly held that one must look before entering a place of possible danger, such as crossing an intersection, and maintain observation while crossing.' Carey v. De Rose, 286 Mich. 321, 323." In the Malone Case and in Sloan v. Ambrose, 300 Mich. 188; Beers v. Arnot, 308 Mich. 604; DeJager v. Vandenberg, 288 Mich. 136 (6 N.C.C.A. [N.S.] 341); Haley v. Grosse Ile Rapid Transit Co., 290 Mich. 373, and Anderson v. Bliss, 281 Mich. 323, the plaintiffs were struck by motor vehicles while crossing streets without having looked for, or having made proper observations as to the speeds and distances of, or having given due heed to, such approaching vehicles.

No idle ceremony is subserved by the requirement that such plaintiff maintain a lookout. He is equally held to be guilty of contributory negligence if he looks and proceeds without seeing approaching traffic which is there plainly to be seen. Zuidema v. Bekkering, 256 Mich. 327; Knight v. Merignac, 281 Mich. 684; Carey v. DeRose, 286 Mich. 321. Furthermore, if he takes but a fleeting glimpse and sees a vehicle approaching on the intersecting street, but proceeds into the intersection without giving the other vehicle any further heed, he is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Boerema v. Cook, 256 Mich. 266; Block v. Peterson, 284 Mich. 88; Koehler v. Thom, 285 Mich. 593; Nelson v. Linderman, 288 Mich. 186; Lacaeyse v. Roe, 310 Mich. 591; Martin v. City of Detroit, 314 Mich. 77.

In that case, as in the instant case, there was nothing to obstruct the view of the driver to prevent his observing the car with which his car came into collision. See, also, Carey v. De Rose, 286 Mich. 321; Carrothers v. French, 309 Mich. 340, 347, 348. In the instant case, plaintiff wrongly assumes that his duty to observe other traffic ceased when he concluded he could cross the intersection ahead of the nearest approaching car, without observing the speed of other cars back of the nearest car. If plaintiff had stopped his car at any point four feet or more north of the center line of Plymouth road, the collision would not have occurred even if defendants' truck were astride the center line; but plaintiff swears that the collision occurred south of the center line.