¶1 (concurring). I concur in reversal for the reasons given but feel that the instruction to be given the jury should go further than as stated by Mr. Justice Bushnell. The jury should be in *12 structed that it should first determine whether defendant was guilty of negligence and whether such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. If the jury should so find, then the' negligence. of plaintiff’s driver has no bearing in the case. When the defendant is guilty of negligence which is a proximate cause of the accident, and the plaintiff is a minor, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, because the negligence of plaintiff’s driver, if he was negligent, cannot then be imputed to the plaintiff.
311 Mich. 6
18 N.W.2d 397
Sedorchuk v. Weeder
Decided April 9, 1945
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1945-04-09
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1945-04-09
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1971
3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →