case out rule in Michigan

1943In our opinion the rule to be applied to the facts in the case at bar is well stated in Marek v. City of Alpena, 258 Mich. 637 : “A violation of the rule that a driver must drive his car at such a speed that he can stop within the assured clear distance ahead does not preclude his recovery for injuries in a case where they are caused by running into a hole or bump on the road.

1941As we stated in Stowell v. Standard Oil Co., 139 Mich. 18 : “It is true the plaintiff’s case rested largely upon inferences to be drawn from the facts proved; but it often occurs that a case meritorious in itself cannot be otherwise established.

1939Bielawski v. Nicks, 290 Mich. 401 .

1900Kempe v. Bader, 86 Tenn. 189 ( 6 S. W. 126 ); Ruggles v. Keeler, 3 Johns. 263 ( 3 Am.

1900Kempe v. Bader, 86 Tenn. 189 ( 6 S. W. 126 ); Ruggles v. Keeler, 3 Johns. 263 ( 3 Am.

1896The stipulation takes the case out from the rule laid down in the case of Hollenburg v. Shuffert, 47 Mich. 126 .

1896We find nothing in the record .which takes the case out of the rule laid down in Strudgeon v. Village of Sand Beach, 107 Mich. 496 , and cases there cited.

1892The facts appearing in the record, and undisputed, ibring the case out of the rule laid down in Ranney v. Donovan, 78 Mich. 318, 329 , and cases there cited.

1883See also Loud v. Campbell 26 Mich. 239 ; McKinnon v. McEwan 48 Mich. 106 .

1883There are no contingencies modifying or taking this case out of the rule laid down by this Court in the case-of B urrell v. New York & Saginaw Solar Salt Co. 14 Mich. 34 .

1882The deceased was sufficiently identified with the steamboat company so as to take this case out of the rule laid down by this Court in Cuddy v. Horn 46 Mich. 596 , and make the steamboat company solely liable.