242 N.E.2d 101 (Ind. 1968), 1268S200, Davison v. Williams

Docket Nº:1268S200.
Citation:242 N.E.2d 101, 251 Ind. 448
Party Name:Henry DAVISON, Appellant, v. Herman L. WILLIAMS, Appellee.
Case Date:December 04, 1968
Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 101

242 N.E.2d 101 (Ind. 1968)

251 Ind. 448

Henry DAVISON, Appellant,

v.

Herman L. WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. 1268S200.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

December 4, 1968

Page 102

[251 Ind. 450] Robert W. Davis, Corydon, for appellant.

James D. Williams, Corydon, for appellee.

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

HUNTER, Judge.

This is a civil action brought by Herman L. Williams for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him as a result of a collision which occurred when an automobile driven by Henry Davison, the Defendant and Petitioner herein, crashed into the rear-end of Williams' automobile. After trial by jury, Williams was awarded damages in the amount of $7,500. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Indiana, Division I. Davison v. Williams (1968), Ind.App., 235 N.E.2d 90. The case is now before this Court on a petition to transfer. Rule 2--23, Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana.

The evidence offered at trial revealed that Plaintiff-Respondent Williams was driving to work on the day of the collision traveling over rather hilly terrain when it became necessary for him to stop his automobile on the traveled portion of the highway to await the passage of a train. The Defendant-Petitioner, who was traveling in the same direction behind [251 Ind. 451] Respondent, upon making a curve in the road, saw that Respondent's auto was stopped for the train. However, Petitioner's brakes failed completely, causing him to collide with the rear-end of Respondent's auto.

In his petition to transfer, Petitioner asserts that the Appellate Court's opinion in this case contravenes the ruling precedent of this Court by approving the following instructions given by the trial court to the jury:

PLAINTIFF'S INSTRUCTION 5,

'There was at the time of the accident in controversy a statute of the State of Indiana in full force and effect providing that 'Every motor vehicle other than a motor-cycle or motor-driven cycle when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold such vehicle including two separate means of applying the brakes, each of which means shall be effective to apply the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two separate means of applying the brakes are connected in any way they shall be so constructed that failure of any one part of the mechanism shall not leave the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.' If you find from the evidence that at the time of the accident in controversy the defendant was operating upon a public highway an automobile that was not equipped with brakes adequate to control its movement and to stop and hold it, including two separate means of applying such brakes, he was guilty of negligence as a matter of law and if as the proximate result thereof, the plaintiff was injured while in the exercise of reasonable care himself, he is entitled to recover in this action such damages as you may find he has thereby sustained, but not to exceed the amount prayed for in the plaintiff's complaint.'

PLAINTIFF'S INSTRUCTION 6,

'There was also at the time of the accident in controversy, a statute of the State of Indiana in full force and effect providing that 'All brakes shall be maintained in good working order.' If you find from the evidence that at the time of the accident in controversy, the defendant was operating upon a public highway an automobile with brakes which were not maintained in good working order he was guilty of negligence as a matter of law and if as the proximate result thereof the plaintiff was injured while in the [251 Ind. 452] exercise of reasonable care himself, he is entitled to recover in this action such damages as you may find he has thereby sustained.'

PLAINTIFF'S INSTRUCTION 7,

'There was also at the time of the accident in controversy a statute of the State of Indiana in full force and effect providing

Page 103

that, 'Every motor vehicle or combination of vehicles, at all times and under all conditions of loading, shall, upon application of the service (foot) brake, be capable of decelerating and developing a braking force equivalent to such deceleration according to the minimum requirements set forth herein and also of stopping within the distances set forth herein. Passenger vehicles, not including busses, stopping distance in feet, 25...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
39 practice notes
  • 65 F.R.D. 661 (N.D.Ind. 1974), 71 H 151, Johnson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Northern District of Indiana
    • 17 Diciembre 1974
    ...prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.' Instruction No. 33 is based upon Davison v. Williams, 251 Ind. 448, 242 N.E.2d 101 (1968). Davison represents the last word and the present law of Indiana regarding the violation of a safety statute or regula......
  • 259 N.E.2d 450 (Ind.App. 1970), 1169A200, Shelby Nat. Bank v. Miller
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 15 Junio 1970
    ...to the case.' Even under pre-Perry v. Goss standards preliminary instruction number 2 is not mandatory. See Davison v. Williams, Ind., 242 N.E.2d 101 (1968). Except as to mandatory instructions, ambiguity, inaccuracy, or incompleteness of one instruction may be cured by another instruction ......
  • 543 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1989), 29A02-8902-CV-00049, Sullivan v. Fairmont Homes, Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 20 Septiembre 1989
    ...the rule that proof of the violation of a safety statute creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence. See, Davison v. Williams (1968), 251 Ind. 448, 242 N.E.2d 101, 104; Thornton v. Pender (1978), 268 Ind. 540, 377 N.E.2d 613, 621. The presumption may always be rebutted by showing that t......
  • 377 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 1978), 678S114, Thornton v. Pender
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 20 Junio 1978
    ...proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence. [268 Ind. 552] Davison v. Williams, (1968) 251 Ind. 448, 242 N.E.2d 101. The presumption of negligence resulting from the violation of a safety regulation may be rebutted since it is not always rea......
  • Free signup to view additional results
39 cases
  • 65 F.R.D. 661 (N.D.Ind. 1974), 71 H 151, Johnson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Northern District of Indiana
    • 17 Diciembre 1974
    ...prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.' Instruction No. 33 is based upon Davison v. Williams, 251 Ind. 448, 242 N.E.2d 101 (1968). Davison represents the last word and the present law of Indiana regarding the violation of a safety statute or regula......
  • 259 N.E.2d 450 (Ind.App. 1970), 1169A200, Shelby Nat. Bank v. Miller
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 15 Junio 1970
    ...to the case.' Even under pre-Perry v. Goss standards preliminary instruction number 2 is not mandatory. See Davison v. Williams, Ind., 242 N.E.2d 101 (1968). Except as to mandatory instructions, ambiguity, inaccuracy, or incompleteness of one instruction may be cured by another instruction ......
  • 543 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1989), 29A02-8902-CV-00049, Sullivan v. Fairmont Homes, Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 20 Septiembre 1989
    ...the rule that proof of the violation of a safety statute creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence. See, Davison v. Williams (1968), 251 Ind. 448, 242 N.E.2d 101, 104; Thornton v. Pender (1978), 268 Ind. 540, 377 N.E.2d 613, 621. The presumption may always be rebutted by showing that t......
  • 377 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 1978), 678S114, Thornton v. Pender
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 20 Junio 1978
    ...proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence. [268 Ind. 552] Davison v. Williams, (1968) 251 Ind. 448, 242 N.E.2d 101. The presumption of negligence resulting from the violation of a safety regulation may be rebutted since it is not always rea......
  • Free signup to view additional results