Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
People v. Traughber
Michigan Supreme Court
432 Mich. 208 (1989)
People often must make split second decisions in emergency situations.
In People versus Traughber, the court considered whether a driver could be convicted of negligent homicide resulting from the driver's choice in an emergency.
Around midnight one night, David Traughber was driving down a dark two lane road with a forty five mile per hour speed limit in rural Michigan.
Traughber was driving south at around thirty five miles per hour when he saw another vehicle driven by Linus Parr driving north around three fourths of a mile ahead of Traughber.
Parr was driving between forty five and fifty miles per hour. When Traughber and Parr's cars got around thirty feet away from each other, Traughber noticed a large metal real estate sign lying flat on the road ahead of him in his lane. Traughber's split second decision was to swerve left into the northbound lane to avoid the sign, thinking that there was enough room between himself and Parr to avoid the sign.
However, Parr saw Traughber enter his lane and thought Traughber would either continue toward Parr or go off the road, so Parr swerved into the southbound lane.
At the same time, Traughber passed the sign and returned to his original lane. Parr and Traughber collided head on in the southbound lane. The woman in the passenger seat of Parr's car was fatally injured.
Parr, Parr's other passenger, Traughber, and Traughber's passenger received minor injuries.
Police arrived shortly after the crash. Traughber's blood alcohol level was point o five percent.
Two follow-up breathalyzer tests at the police department showed Traughber's blood alcohol level over the following hour and a half was point o four percent.
Traughber was charged with negligent homicide and operating a motor vehicle without a valid license.
Traughber waived his arraignment and right to a jury trial. After a bench trial, the court applied the ordinary negligence reasonable person standard of care and found Traughber guilty of negligent homicide. The judge cited Traughber's experience as a truck driver and said he should have made a better judgment call and been able to swerve to the right off the road instead of into Pars Lane. Traughber was acquitted of operating a motor vehicle without a valid license. Traughber appealed. The appellate court affirmed.
Traughber appealed again, saying the trial court judge held Traughber to a higher standard of care than an ordinary reasonable person. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/people-v-traughber
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/people-v-traughber
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
People v. Traughber
Michigan Supreme Court
432 Mich. 208 (1989)
People often must make split second decisions in emergency situations.
In People versus Traughber, the court considered whether a driver could be convicted of negligent homicide resulting from the driver's choice in an emergency.
Around midnight one night, David Traughber was driving down a dark two lane road with a forty five mile per hour speed limit in rural Michigan.
Traughber was driving south at around thirty five miles per hour when he saw another vehicle driven by Linus Parr driving north around three fourths of a mile ahead of Traughber.
Parr was driving between forty five and fifty miles per hour. When Traughber and Parr's cars got around thirty feet away from each other, Traughber noticed a large metal real estate sign lying flat on the road ahead of him in his lane. Traughber's split second decision was to swerve left into the northbound lane to avoid the sign, thinking that there was enough room between himself and Parr to avoid the sign.
However, Parr saw Traughber enter his lane and thought Traughber would either continue toward Parr or go off the road, so Parr swerved into the southbound lane.
At the same time, Traughber passed the sign and returned to his original lane. Parr and Traughber collided head on in the southbound lane. The woman in the passenger seat of Parr's car was fatally injured.
Parr, Parr's other passenger, Traughber, and Traughber's passenger received minor injuries.
Police arrived shortly after the crash. Traughber's blood alcohol level was point o five percent.
Two follow-up breathalyzer tests at the police department showed Traughber's blood alcohol level over the following hour and a half was point o four percent.
Traughber was charged with negligent homicide and operating a motor vehicle without a valid license.
Traughber waived his arraignment and right to a jury trial. After a bench trial, the court applied the ordinary negligence reasonable person standard of care and found Traughber guilty of negligent homicide. The judge cited Traughber's experience as a truck driver and said he should have made a better judgment call and been able to swerve to the right off the road instead of into Pars Lane. Traughber was acquitted of operating a motor vehicle without a valid license. Traughber appealed. The appellate court affirmed.
Traughber appealed again, saying the trial court judge held Traughber to a higher standard of care than an ordinary reasonable person. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/people-v-traughber
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/people-v-traughber
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries









![Weigel Broadcasting Co v TV 49, Inc Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Weigel Broadcasting Co. v. TV-49 | 466 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (2006)
Letters of intent are preliminary agreements outlining the terms of a potential deal or transaction.
These agreements often fall into a gray area of contract law, straddling the line between binding and non binding agreements.
Well explore this line in Weigel Broadcasting Company versus TV forty nine.
TV forty nine, a television station, signed a letter of intent to negotiate its sale to Weigel Broadcasting Company. The letter described the proposed sale terms as nonbinding, but required TV forty nine to cease negotiations with other parties upon signing. The letter also stated that the parties would negotiate and execute a definitive purchase agreement within forty days.
Shortly before the forty day deadline, Weigel sent TV forty nine a draft purchase agreement, but the station didnt respond until after the deadline expired. The parties then argued over certain terms in the agreement, and Weigel warned that it would withdraw from the transaction, unless TV forty nine agreed to specific demands.
TV forty nine informed Weigel that it wouldnt accept its demands, and began negotiations with another prospective buyer.
Weigel sued TV forty nine for breach of contract, arguing that the letter of intent was a binding agreement that required the parties to negotiate exclusively and in good faith. Weigel claims that TV forty nine breached this agreement by withholding certain documents from negotiations, and by entertaining a third partys offer.
Weigel sought specific performance and an injunction barring TV forty nine from selling to another buyer, or in the alternative damages.
TV forty nine moved for summary judgment, arguing that the letter of intent was non binding, and imposed no obligations on either party. The court considered the stations motion.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [insert link of case brief on Quimbee]
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [insert the link of the case brief on Quimbee]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries Weigel Broadcasting Co v TV 49, Inc Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ThRFxb0-Zr0/mqdefault.jpg)
