Griggs v. Griggs

Citations: 132 N.W.2d 163; 374 Mich. 268; 1965 Mich. LEXIS 322Docket: Calendar 70-74, Docket 50,094-50,098

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; January 4, 1965; Michigan; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In Griggs v. Griggs, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a case where a jury issued a no cause verdict for five plaintiffs following a fatal car accident. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, citing an erroneous jury instruction from the circuit judge that contained a "mixed law and fact proposition." Despite acknowledging the mistake, the judge denied the motion for a new trial, reasoning that under Ontario law, plaintiff Owen Griggs's negligence constituted a new intervening cause of the accident, negating any potential liability from the defendant, Maceo Griggs.

The incident involved two cars traveling together from Detroit to Buffalo for a funeral. Both vehicles failed to navigate a curve in the highway and crashed down an embankment, resulting in fatalities and injuries. The plaintiffs claimed that Maceo had assumed the role of leading Owen and had a duty to drive carefully, which he allegedly breached by ignoring curve signs. Maceo admitted to driving off the highway but contended that Owen's failure to maintain control was the primary cause of the accident.

Key testimonies from survivors, including Owen Griggs, detailed the events leading up to the crash and suggested visibility issues due to fog. Ultimately, the court upheld the trial judge's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs had not established grounds for a new trial based on the issues of proximate cause and negligence under applicable law.

Owen Griggs recounted an incident where he accelerated while driving in fog after losing sight of Maceo's taillights, leading to a crash over a cliff. Despite initially applying the brakes, he stated that the car failed to turn. During cross-examination, Griggs admitted he could not see due to the fog but accelerated when Maceo's lights disappeared, indicating he was trying to maintain proximity. Emery Davis, a passenger, corroborated that Griggs increased speed as Maceo's lights vanished.

Judge Bowles assessed the testimony, concluding that since Griggs could not see Maceo's vehicle and chose to speed up in the fog, Maceo's prior actions could not legally cause Griggs to miss the curve that led to their accident. The judge emphasized that Griggs had a duty to adhere to traffic regulations, which he breached by increasing his speed in a hazardous situation. There was no legal justification found that would absolve Griggs of responsibility for his actions while driving.

Operators of motor vehicles are legally responsible for the safe operation of their vehicles and cannot transfer this responsibility to others. Plaintiff Owen Griggs had a duty to observe and heed traffic control devices, which included warning signs for a curve on the highway. Despite testimony indicating the presence of these signs, Griggs claimed he did not see them, and if he attributes his failure to the fog, his actions would be inconsistent with the ruling in *Wilson v. Terminal Warehouses Limited*, where a driver was found negligent for not slowing down upon encountering fog. Additionally, in *Brooks v. Ward and the Queen*, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a driver could be found negligent if they failed to see obvious hazards, establishing that negligence can be clearly assigned to one party without apportionment under comparative negligence laws. Griggs accelerated instead of slowing down as he approached a fog bank, which was deemed the immediate cause of the accident, thus precluding any claims for damages from him or his passengers due to his imputed negligence under Ontario law. The court affirmed the decision, awarding costs to the appellee.