Barnes v. Barnett
Decision Date | 16 November 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 32185.,32185. |
Citation | 184 Iowa 936,169 N.W. 365 |
Parties | BARNES v. BARNETT. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Des Moines; O. S. Franklin, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages on account of an alleged collision of automobiles in the city of Des Moines. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.Thomas A. Cheshire, of Des Moines, for appellant.
Carr, Carr & Evans, of Des Moines, for appellee.
In his petition plaintiff alleges that he was driving an automobile west on Ingersoll avenue in the city of Des Moines, intending to turn south on Thirty-Sixth street; that as he was making the turn he discovered the defendant coming to the east on the south side of the avenue, driving an automobile at such high rate of speed that plaintiff, to avoid a collision, turned his car to the east, giving defendant room to pass him, but, notwithstanding this precaution, defendant carelessly, negligently, and recklessly drove her car into and against the car of the plaintiff, breaking and injuring it to the extent of $500, for which he asks judgment.
The defendant admits that at the time mentioned she was driving her car east on Ingersoll avenue, and alleges that as she was approaching the Thirty-Sixth street crossing she saw plaintiff's car moving west on the north side of the avenue; that as plaintiff neared Thirty-Sixth street he turned his car slightly into the intersection on the east side thereof and practically stopped; that defendant's driver, noticing this situation, and knowing that he had the right of way over the crossing as against the plaintiff, who had practically stopped, continued his course along the south side of the avenue, and just as he entered upon the intersection plaintiff suddenly put his car in motion, driving it immediately in front of defendant's car, causing the collision of which he complains. Defendant further alleged that in driving east on the south side of Ingersoll avenue she had the right of way, in preference to the plaintiff moving west on the north side of the avenue and turning to the left on Thirty-Sixth street, and that the collision was caused by plaintiff's own negligence in making a short turn to the south on the east side of the intersection, instead of making a wide turn to the west side of such intersection, as the law requires. Defendant also denies that she or her driver was in any manner negligent, or that her car was being driven at a negligent or reckless rate of speed.
Defendant, by way of counterclaim, restates the allegations of her answer, alleges that the collision was caused by plaintiff's negligence, and that thereby her car was damaged, and that she herself sustained serious and painful injuries, for all which she asks judgment in the sum of $1,000. The issues were tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff for damages to the amount of $93, and defendant appeals.
The exceptions taken and argued by appellant relate principally to the instructions given and to the denial of defendant's requests for instructions. To an understanding of the bearing and effect of the rulings of the court in these respects, some reference to the testimony is necessary. It will also aid in understanding the situation to note that what the witnesses call the “north side” of Ingersoll and “south side” of Ingersoll are separate and independent tracks, each 20 feet wide, between which is an unpaved and unimproved strip 20 feet wide, occupied and used exclusively for street railway purposes, except at the street crossings, which are paved and open to public use.
As a witness the plaintiff, speaking of his approach to Thirty-Sixth street, says:
On cross-examination, among other things, he says:
Another witness, King, who was with the plaintiff at the time, says that as they approached the Thirty-Sixth street intersection he saw the defendant's car coming at a terrific rate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hutchins v. LaBarre, 47779
... ... Shuck v. Keefe, supra, 205 Iowa 365, 370, 218 N.W. 31; Barnes v. Barnett, 184 Iowa 936, 943-944, 169 N.W. 365; Roe v. Kurtz, 203 Iowa 906, 908, 210 N.W. 550; Hartman v. Red Ball Transp. Co., 211 Iowa 64, 68, 233 ... ...
-
Scherer v. Scandrett
... ... to be conclusive evidence of negligence.' (Italics ... supplied.) As said in Barnes v. Barnett, 184 Iowa 936, 941, ... 169 N.W. 365, 367, 'the existence of contributory ... negligence is peculiarly a jury question.' The issue ... ...
-
Mueller v. Roben
... ... Barnes v. Barnett, 184 Iowa 936, 169 N.W. 365; Altfilisch v. Wessel, 208 Iowa 361, 225 N.W. 862; Tinley v. Chambers Implement Co., 216 Iowa 458, 249 N.W ... ...
-
Peter E. Lachance, Admr. v. Alex Myers
... ... Among the ... cases supporting this proposition are Shirley v ... Larkin Co., 239 N.Y. 94, 145 N.E. 751; ... Barnes v. Barnett, 184 Iowa 936, 169 N.W ... 365; Hughes v. Hudson-Brace Motor Co., 111 ... Kan. 397, 207 P. 795; Soderberg v. Taney, ... 152 Minn. 376, ... ...