Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Mich. App. 460

136 N.W.2d 776

Barton v. Myers

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided November 24, 1965

Michigan Court of Appeals · decided 1965-11-24

Decided 1965-11-24

T. G. Kavanagh, J.

¶1[concurring). The Cheli decision requires affirmance and for that reason, I con*463cur. However, I believe tbe better rule is tbat tbe reasonableness of care should be determined by the jury in accord with the principle enunciated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Texas & P. R. Co. v. Behymer (1903), 189 US 468 (23 S Ct 622, 47 L ed 905) at page 470:

“What usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not.”

¶2I believe that negligence should seldom, if ever, be determined as a matter of law for the reasons so well stated in Mr. Justice Cooley’s opinion in Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg (1868), 17 Mich 99.

/1/michapp/460 · .json · Public domain