Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc.
Decision Date | 25 February 1946 |
Docket Number | 4797 |
Citation | 64 Ariz. 101,166 P.2d 816 |
Parties | ALABAM FREIGHT LINES v. PHOENIX BAKERY, Inc. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; Howard C. Speakman Judge.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Theodore G. McKesson and Thomas P. Riordan, both of Phoenix, for appellant.
Snell Strouss & Wilmer, of Phoenix, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant instituted this action in the court below for recovery of damages to its truck in a collision with defendant-appellee's truck. The facts are conceded to be: On August 20, 1943, at about 3 o'clock in the morning, plaintiff's truck with trailer was being driven in a westerly direction over and on the right-hand portion of Highway 70, at a point approximately 30 miles west of Safford where the road, on its westerly course, ascends to and passes through a cut on a hill crest with a left-hand curve. At the same time, defendant's truck with semi-trailer was being driven in an easterly direction along the highway, immediately following another truck and trailer being driven upgrade to the crest of the hill above mentioned. On its easterly course the highway ascends this hill on a moderate grade with a right-hand curve through the cut. A high embankment borders the highway on the north side. A solid or nonpassing white line was painted down the middle of the road from a point considerably west of the hill and over its summit. Defendant's truck driver turned his truck over this white line and attempted to pass the preceding truck on the left. His view of the road was obscured by the curve and the truck which he was attempting to pass. The driver of plaintiff's truck, as he approached the crest of the hill, was proceeding on his proper side of the road in a westerly direction at a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour, and as he came through the cut at the hill crest he saw defendant's truck in front of him on the northerly side (wrong side) of the road just over the summit, at a distance of not more than 60 feet. The driver of the eastbound truck, which defendant's truck was attempting to pass, upon seeing plaintiff's westbound truck, pulled as far to the south as possible. The driver of defendant's truck slowed down to drop back to the rear of the preceding eastbound truck but was unable to do so before the collision. The driver of plaintiff's truck fully applied his brakes and turned off the road to the right as far as the embankment would allow, but was unable to stop before the trucks collided. At the rate of speed he was traveling, the driver's testimony indicated he could not stop the truck within the range of his vision. The collision between the two trucks occurred well over on the north side of the highway (plaintiff's side), the front wheels of defendant's truck being seven feet northerly of the center line of the road, and the cab portion of plaintiff's truck resting on the north embankment and over a portion of defendant's truck. Both trucks were damaged. Quickly stated, the bald facts are: Each party was driving a big truck with trailer attached approaching the crest of the hill from opposite directions on an S-curve through a cut. When the plaintiff reached the crest and started over the hill on his own side of the road, there the defendant was, in front of him on the wrong side of the road, attempting to pass a slow-moving truck and trailer in front of him, and in a position from which he could not extricate himself. The highway was completely occupied -- plaintiff pulled to his right as far as he could and ran his truck into the side of the cut, but still could not avoid running into defendant's equipment. The situation was graphically put in the words of the driver of the truck that the defendant was attempting to pass. His testimony is as follows:
At the close of plaintiff's case, defendant moved for judgment upon the ground that plaintiff's evidence disclosed contributory negligence, and there could be no recovery. This motion was predicated on defendant's statement that it would not offer any evidence with respect to the accident. The case was tried by the court without a jury.
The court made the following findings:
Conclusions of law were made following the findings of fact, and judgment was rendered for defendant, dismissing plaintiff's cause of action from which plaintiff has appealed.
Defendant earnestly contends that the lower court had ample evidence to support its findings that the proximate cause of the collision was contributed to by plaintiff's speed coupled with the inability to stop the truck within his range of vision, and that, therefore, this court is bound by these findings. Plaintiff has assigned as error the rendering of judgment for defendant "for the reason and upon the ground that the uncontradicted evidence shows that the defendant was guilty of wilful and wanton negligence." His proposition of law in support of this assignment is to the effect that a defendant guilty of willful and wanton negligence cannot avail himself of the plea of contributory negligence except where plaintiff, knowing of defendant's reckless misconduct and the danger involved to him therein, recklessly exposes himself thereto. It is the position of defendant that there was no evidence introduced in the lower court to warrant and justify a finding of willful and wanton negligence on his part. We believe that the bare recitation of the facts emphatically refutes this contention. Defendant's driver was not only guilty of violating the statute relative to overtaking and passing a preceding vehicle, but he did it in a manner demonstrating reckless disregard for the safety of others, knowing or having reason to know that a reasonable man would realize...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williamson v. McKenna
...would appreciate it. In other words, the standard is an objective one as it is in the case of negligence. Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., 1946, 64 Ariz. 101, 166 P.2d 816; Cope v. Davison, 1947, 30 Cal.2d 193, 180 P.2d 873, 171 A.L.R. 667, dissenting opinion; Dexter v. Green, ......
-
Falls v. Mortensen
...v. Monahan, 282 Mass. 523, 185 N.E. 346; Adkisson v. City of Seattle, 42 Wash.2d 676, 258 P.2d 461; Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., 64 Ariz. 101, 166 P.2d 816; Hoesel v. Cain, 222 Ind. 330, 53 N.E.2d 165, 769; Womack v. Preach, 63 Ariz. 390, 163 P.2d 280; Wise v. Hollowell, 20......
-
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc., 18082-CQ
...5 did not elevate the defense of contributory negligence into the pantheon of constitutional rights. In Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., 64 Ariz. 101, 166 P.2d 816 (1946), we observed that "this constitutional provision has always been given effect where the legal defense of co......
-
Bryan v. Southern Pac. Co., 5846
...One effect of wanton negligence is to bar the defense of contributory negligence. Womack v. Preach, supra; Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., 64 Ariz 101, 166 P.2d 816; Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Svendsen, 13 Ariz. 111, 108 P. Much of the evidence is undisputed. On the night of t......