Oakes v. Van Zomeren

11 Citing cases

  1. Johannes v. Rooks

    34 N.W.2d 456 (Mich. 1948)   Cited 1 times
    In Johannes v. Rooks, 322 Mich. 611, the Court divided equally and thus affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff, an 8-year-old school girl involved in a highway accident, on the ground that the question of her contributory negligence had properly been left to the jury.

    " See, also, Zylstra v. Graham, 244 Mich. 319; Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372; Dedo v. Skinner, 296 Mich. 299, 302, 303. Defendant complains of the charge as to the rule of contributory negligence.

  2. Zeigler v. Ryan

    65 S.D. 110 (S.D. 1937)   Cited 23 times
    Stating the rule followed in many South Dakota cases that in the absence of an objection to the court's instructions, the law set forth in those instructions becomes "the law of the case"

    That the car performed in the unusual manner of skidding and rolling seventy-five feet, with sufficient momentum to break a telephone pole at the end of its journey, is strongly indicative of lack of control and unreasonable speed in view of the surrounding circumstances and condition of the highway, at least it might be so considered by the jury. See Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372 238 N.W. 177. Whether Kennedy acted in the use of his brakes as an ordinarily prudent man would act under similar circumstances was also, we believe, a question for the jury.

  3. Anderson v. Kearly

    20 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. 1945)   Cited 31 times

    The resulting damages in this case are prospective and difficult of exact ascertainment. Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372. The determination of such damages will not be disturbed on appeal if reasonably within the range of the testimony. Kinsler v. Simpson, 257 Mich. 7. In the case at bar the testimony is conflicting as to the prospective earning power of the deceased, but the amount of damages allowed is not outside of the range of the testimony and should not be disturbed.

  4. Morris v. Radley

    306 Mich. 689 (Mich. 1943)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Morris v. Radley, 306 Mich. 689, damages were sought for the death of a child less than 5 years of age. There was no basis in the record for any allowance of damages based on possible contributions that the child, after attaining majority, might have made to her parents, and this Court held that the trial court properly limited the recovery of damages to medical, hospital, and funeral expenses, and deceased's future earnings and contributions to her parents until her 21st birthday, less the reasonable expenses incurred by her parents in the child's maintenance.

    The resulting damages in this case are prospective and difficult of exact ascertainment. Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372. The determination of such damages will not be disturbed on appeal if reasonably within the range of the testimony. Kinsler v. Simpson, 257 Mich. 7. In the case at bar the testimony is conflicting as to the prospective earning power of the deceased, but the amount of damages allowed is not outside of the range of the testimony and should not be disturbed.

  5. Chadwick v. Kempf

    2 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. 1942)   Cited 1 times

    She had a right to assume that defendant would operate his car at a lawful rate of speed, i.e., not over 20 miles per hour in a residential district, and, therefore, that she could cross the street with safety. Zylstra v. Graham, 244 Mich. 319, and Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372. See, also, Grant v. Richardson, 276 Mich. 151. "The rule is that unless the record in a case of this character is such that men of reasonable minds would not differ, a question of fact is presented." Swift v. Kenbeek, 289 Mich. 391. An examination of this record requires agreement with the conclusion of the trial judge, that this child was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

  6. Rufner v. City of Traverse City

    295 N.W. 620 (Mich. 1941)   Cited 12 times
    In Rufner v City of Traverse City, 296 Mich. 204 [ 295 N.W. 620 (1941)], and Cabana v City of Hart, 327 Mich. 287 [ 42 N.W.2d 97 (1950)] (19 ALR2d 333), we ruled that CL 1948, § 242.3 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.593), requires cities to maintain in reasonable repair electric street light poles as part of their duty to keep in reasonable repair streets, highways, sidewalks, et cetera, so that they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.

    The resulting damages in this case are prospective and difficult of exact ascertainment. Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372. The determination of such damages will not be disturbed on appeal if reasonably within the range of the testimony. Kinsler v. Simpson, 257 Mich. 7. In the case at bar the testimony is conflicting as to the prospective earning power of the deceased, but the amount of damages allowed is not outside of the range of the testimony and should not be disturbed.

  7. Donahue v. Gordon

    291 N.W. 14 (Mich. 1940)   Cited 4 times

    "While the monetary compensation cannot be measured with any degree of certainty, nevertheless, plaintiff is entitled to a substantial amount for the pain and suffering endured by decedent. Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372. We have affirmed judgments for larger amounts in cases of infants who only survived a few hours after receiving fatal injuries.

  8. Jones v. Eastern Michigan Motorbuses

    287 Mich. 619 (Mich. 1939)   Cited 33 times

    "In urging that the judgment for $4,500 is excessive, appellant's counsel rely much upon the practice provided by our recently revised court rules under which the review of nonjury law cases is by hearing de novo in this court. * * * We have reviewed the record with care and find no reason for differing with the trial judge as to the amount of damages awarded." Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372. (Decided October 5, 1931.) "While, under Court Rule No. 75 (1931), we may consider the case de novo, we are unwilling to determine the correctness of the amount of damages without some indication by the trial judge who has heard all of the testimony and seen the witnesses, of what the amount should be."

  9. Marr v. Hicks

    1 A.2d 271 (Me. 1938)   Cited 16 times

    "Obviously, cases involving injury due to the skidding of an automobile are dependent upon the particular facts shown. However, the following cases each disclose a set of facts in many respects similar to those here involved, and in each instance the question of negligence of the driver was held to be a jury question: Loftus v. Pelletier, 223 Mass. 63, 111 N.E. 712; Ortwein v. Droste, 191 Ky. 17, 228 S.W. 1028; Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372, 238 N.W. 177; Ledet v. Gottleber (La. App.), 143 So. 71; Davis v. Brown, 92 Cal.App. 20, 267 P. 754; Barret v. Caddo Transfer Warehouse Company, 165 La. 1075, 116 So. 563, 58 A. L. R., 261. There was no manifest error upon the question of liability in the verdicts of the jury.

  10. Brinker v. Tobin

    270 N.W. 209 (Mich. 1936)   Cited 6 times

    "In considering the question of contributory negligence of plaintiff's decedent, we must be mindful of the fact that he was a lad of tender years." Oakes v. Van Zomeren, 255 Mich. 372. In the latter case there was testimony that the boy was well towards the center line of the street before defendant's car came into view.