Alexander v. Corey
| Decision Date | 14 August 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A-6562.,A-6562. |
| Parties | ALEXANDER v. COREY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
McCutcheon & Nesbett, Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiff.
Davis & Renfrew, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when an automobile driven by the defendant ran off the highway and crashed into the ditch. Plaintiff alleges that he was a passenger. Defendant contends that he was a guest. Since the standard of care is the same in either case, I find it unnecessary to pass upon this contention.
The plaintiff testified that, immediately before the accident, the car was being driven on a portion of the highway which had been scraped but a short time previously; that this scraping operation, as is usual, left a ridge of loose gravel on either side of the highway; that a car approached at a high rate of speed from the opposite direction; that in order to pass this car, defendant turned from his course so that the right wheels crossed the ridge on the right side of the highway; that in attempting to recross, the car suddenly darted across the highway and plunged into the ditch in the opposite side with such force that both plaintiff and defendant were thrown through the windshield and injured.
The plaintiff's version was not contradicted by the defendant in any material respect, nor was the defendant able to explain why he failed to control the car in its course across the highway. Defendant, however, was uncertain whether the right wheels had passed over the gravel ridge referred to or whether the right wheels, or one of them, were running upon or along the ridge when the car got out of control. But as I view the situation, the precise position of the car with reference to the ridge is of no importance, for if the car skidded in gravel, which the defendant knew was there, it would be quite immaterial whether the skidding was due to excessive speed or the application of too much power while in the gravel. In either event it would be negligence, and whether the car's plunge across the highway and into the ditch was due to skidding or to loss of control, the defendant would be liable, in the one case for a specific act of negligence and in the other under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
On behalf of the defendant, however, it is contended that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable because the defendant has offered an explanation of the accident. But all that the defendant has offered is a mere statement of the accident, such as could be...
To continue reading
Request your trial