Alexander v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc., 4800
Decision Date | 27 January 1947 |
Docket Number | 4800 |
Citation | 65 Ariz. 187,177 P.2d 229 |
Parties | ALEXANDER v. PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES, Inc., et al |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; Howard C. Speakman Judge.
Affirmed.
V. L Hash, of Phoenix, for appellant.
Baker and Whitney, of Phoenix, for appellees.
We will style the appellant the plaintiff, the appellee, the defendant.
Defendant's bus going to Globe, Arizona, and other points east, left the bus station in Phoenix, at a time between 6:40 and 7:00 o'clock P.M., on December 24, 1941. Plaintiff was a passenger on the bus and had bought her ticket for Globe. The bus made but one stop between Phoenix and the place of accident hereinafter referred to, the stop being made at Mesa, Arizona, where plaintiff claimed the stop was for five to ten minutes. At the time of the accident, defendant claims the bus was traveling at a rate not in excess of 45 miles per hour. Plaintiff testified, however, that she believes the bus was traveling at a rate of 55 to 65 miles per hour. Testimony shows that the place where the accident occurred was a point half way between Apache Junction and Florence Junction, a distance of only 40 miles from Phoenix and the accident occurred at 8:15 P.M. Before the accident the bus driver saw approaching on the highway from the east another automobile which later proved to be an Essex. The Essex apparently had good lights and when the bus driver first observed the Essex, it was about one-half mile away. The bus driver dimmed the lights of the bus when the Essex approached, and testimony shows that the bus was being driven at least three or four feet to the right of the middle line of the highway. The Essex kept on its right-hand side of the line, in which it was driving until it was within 20 or 30 feet of the bus when it swerved to the left side of the middle line and struck the bus at the left-hand front corner, or the corner next to the approaching Essex. By reason of the impact the floor boards of the bus were knocked out and the bus was caused to leave the highway, and was brought under control some 400 feet distant after striking a palo verde tree.
Plaintiff claims damages for injuries received and for medical and hospital expenses aggregating the sum of $ 6,800.
At the close of plaintiff's case, defendant moved for an instructed verdict which was granted, and from the order granting an instructed verdict, and from denial of a motion for new trial plaintiff appeals to this court.
By assignments of error plaintiff contends that the court erred in directing a verdict for defendant because plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of negligence by proving injuries to her; that plaintiff's proof established negligence by defendant and such acts became a question of fact for the jury.
Other errors assigned were: "That the court erred in denying the plaintiff the right to a trial amendment to the effect that the bus was not equipped with adequate brakes" and "That the court erred in holding that the law of the road was the law of the case as applied to the relation of passenger and carrier."
Among the cases submitted by plaintiff in support of the first group of assignments of error is Scarborough v. Urgo, 191 Cal. 341, 216 P. 584, 586. Without expressing the facts, the opinion in part reads:
From our case of Phen v. All American Bus Lines, 56 Ariz. 567, 110 P.2d 227, 228, a case which was cited by plaintiff and quoted by defendant, we quote:
The plaintiff, on cross-examination, testified:
J. B. Gibson, Jr., who was the bus driver, was called for cross-examination by plaintiff and testified.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nunez v. Prof'l Transit Mgmt. of Tucson, Inc.
...We have also emphasized that common carriers are not insurers of the safety of their passengers. Alexander v. Pac. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 65 Ariz. 187, 193, 177 P.2d 229, 233 (1947). But, by requiring that a carrier exercise more care than that reasonable under the circumstances of the case......
-
Nichols v. City of Phoenix
... ... Lewis v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 147 Or. 588, 34 ... P.2d 616, ... passengers. Alexander v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 65 ... Ariz. 187, ... ...
-
Nunez v. Prof'l Transit Mgmt. of Tucson, Inc.
...We have also emphasized that common carriers are not insurers of the safety of their passengers. Alexander v. Pac. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 65 Ariz. 187, 193, 177 P.2d 229, 233 (1947). But, by requiring that a carrier exercise more care than that reasonable under the circumstances of the case......
-
Pena v. Stewart
...or thing causing the accident is at the time of the injury in control of the party charged with negligence. Alexander v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 65 Ariz. 187, 177 P.2d 229. It is clear the 'appliances and agencies of the premises' causing the injury were not in the control of the defendant......