Anderson v. Sterrit

• Decision Date: 08 May 1915
• Docket Number: 19,483
• Citation: 148 P. 635,95 Kan. 483
• Parties: CARL ANDERSON, a Minor, etc., Appellee, v. J. PRESTON STERRIT, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

148 P. 635

95 Kan. 483

CARL ANDERSON, a Minor, etc., Appellee, v. J. PRESTON STERRIT, Appellant

No. 19,483

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 8, 1915

Decided. January, 1915.

Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 2; FRANK D HUTCHINGS, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. AUTOMOBILE--Bicycle--Collision--Injuries--Violation of Ordinance No Defense to Action for Damages. The plaintiff, who was riding a bicycle, was injured by the defendant, who was driving an automobile on one of the streets of the city of Kansas City, Mo. In an action for damages sustained on account of the injury it appeared that the plaintiff had no license to ride his bicycle and carried no light, contrary to an ordinance of the city. The absence of a license was not a factor causing the collision, and the defendant testified that he saw the plaintiff when he was a long distance from the point of collision. Held, neither violation of the ordinance constituted a defense to the action.

2. SAME--Special Findings. Special findings of the jury considered and held not to be conflicting; and held further, that the findings of fact and general verdict are sustained by the evidence.

L. W. Keplinger, and C. W. Trickett, both of Kansas City, for the appellant.

David F. Carson, of Kansas City, and Milton J. Oldham, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellee.

OPINION

BURCH, J.:

The action was one to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff recovered and the defendant appeals.

Southwest boulevard in Kansas City, Mo., extends from northeast to southwest and intersects Broadway, which extends from north to south. The defendant was driving an automobile on the south side of the boulevard and toward the northeast. He turned to the left to go into Broadway before reaching the center of that street and struck the plaintiff, who was riding a bicycle toward the southwest on the north side of the boulevard. After the collision the plaintiff lay in an unconscious condition fifteen feet west of the west side of Broadway. A statute of the state of Missouri, which was duly pleaded and proved, requires automobile drivers to use the highest degree of care to prevent injury to persons traveling upon public streets, and requires automobile drivers to keep to the right on public streets and to pass to the right when turning to the left from one street into an intersecting street. An ordinance of the city of Kansas City, Mo., which was duly pleaded and proved, provides that a vehicle turning to the left into an intersecting street shall not turn until it has passed beyond the center of the intersecting street. The plaintiff testified that he was going at a rate of about eight miles per hour. The defendant testified that the plaintiff was going at a rate of from twenty-five to thirty miles an hour. The defendant testified that he was going at a rate of from eight to ten miles per hour. There was abundant evidence to show that the defendant was going much faster than his own testimony indicated. It was dark or growing dark when the collision occurred.

The jury returned the following special findings of fact:

"1. Immediately before the accident, was plaintiff, on his bicycle, and defendant in his automobile, coming toward each other, along the Southwest Boulevard on opposite sides of the Broadway crossing? Answer: They were just prior to the accident.

"2. Immediately before the accident had defendant turned to his left to go up Broadway? Answer: Yes.

"3. At the time of the accident had plaintiff on his bicycle almost crossed in front of defendant's auto? Answer: Yes.

"4. Did the ordinances of the city, in which the accident occurred, require the plaintiff to be carrying a light? Answer: Yes.

"5. Immediately before and at the time of the accident, was plaintiff carrying a light? Answer: No.

"6. Immediately before and at the time of the accident, were the headlights on the front of defendant's auto lighted and in plain view? Answer: Yes.

"7. Did the plaintiff see the defendant's auto before he got directly in front of the auto? Answer: No.

"9. Did the ordinances of the city require plaintiff to have a license? Answer: Yes.

"11. Did ...