Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., No. 13699
| Docket Nº | No. 13699 |
| Citation | 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709 |
| Case Date | September 27, 1983 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Page 709
v.
DELTA LINES, INC.; Adolph Salazar, Respondents.
Page 710
Cochrane & Rose, and Robert E. Rose, Las Vegas, for appellants.
Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy & Jemison, and Drake DeLanoy, Las Vegas, for respondents.
[99 Nev. 689] OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises out of a traffic accident which occurred on July 25, 1978, when the automobile which was owned and operated by appellant George Barnes collided with a semitruck owned by respondent Delta Lines, Inc. Shortly before the collision occurred, the driver of the truck, respondent Adolph Salazar, had apparently pulled the truck forward from the righthand side of the road, and was in the process of backing the truck into a private parking lot on that same side of the road. When Barnes collided with the truck, it was apparently blocking both of the eastbound lanes of the road in the direction in which Barnes had been traveling. Barnes suffered various injuries in this accident, and he and his wife, appellant Lisa Barnes, subsequently brought a cause of action alleging that respondents had negligently owned and operated a motor vehicle.
At the trial on this matter, the judge instructed the jury that it was a violation of Nevada law to fail to yield the right of way to moving traffic while backing a vehicle on a roadway, or when entering a highway from a private way. See NRS 484.321, 484.449. Appellants then requested that the judge give the following negligence per se instruction to be read in conjunction with the above instructions on Nevada traffic laws:
[99 Nev. 690] If you find that a party to this action violated any of the statutes just read to you and that such violation was a proximate cause of injury to another or to himself, you will find that such violation was negligence unless such party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
The trial judge refused to give this instruction, and the jury returned a verdict for respondents. Appellants now contend that the judge's refusal was error. 1 We agree.
When a defendant violates a statute which was designed to protect a class of persons to which the plaintiff belongs, and thereby proximately causes injury to the plaintiff, such a violation constitutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00296-GMN-BNW
...on negligence per se based upon a violation of the Reno Municipal Code governing pedestrians' right of way); Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc. , 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709, 710–11 (1983) ("[T]he two traffic statutes in question were clearly enacted to protect motorists such as appellant Barnes fro......
-
Honeycutt v. State, No. 35466, 35468.
...733 So.2d 846, 849 (Miss.Ct. App.1998) (quoting Anderson v. State, 571 So.2d 961, 964 (Miss.1990)). 51. Cf. Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 690 n. 1, 669 P.2d 709, 710 n. 1 (1983) (concluding that the requirements of NRCP 51 were met when the appellants provided the trial judge wi......
-
Vega v. EASTERN COURTYARD ASSOCIATES, No. 33932
...660 P.2d 1013, 1015 (1983))); Brannan v. Nevada Rock & Sand, 108 Nev. 23, 26-27, 823 P.2d 291, 293 (1992); Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 690, 669 P.2d 709, 710 10. 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709. 11. Id. at 690, 669 P.2d at 710-11. 12. 105 Nev. 48, 769 P.2d 53 (1989). 13. Id. at 51-5......
-
Cox v. Copperfield, 76422
...(quoting Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220, 225, 351 P.2d 617, 620 (I960)), which is within its province to do. Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 690, 669 P.2d 709, 711 (1983) (holding that proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury). Otherwise stated, the Coxes failed to establis......
-
Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00296-GMN-BNW
...on negligence per se based upon a violation of the Reno Municipal Code governing pedestrians' right of way); Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc. , 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709, 710–11 (1983) ("[T]he two traffic statutes in question were clearly enacted to protect motorists such as appellant Barnes fro......
-
Honeycutt v. State, No. 35466, 35468.
...733 So.2d 846, 849 (Miss.Ct. App.1998) (quoting Anderson v. State, 571 So.2d 961, 964 (Miss.1990)). 51. Cf. Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 690 n. 1, 669 P.2d 709, 710 n. 1 (1983) (concluding that the requirements of NRCP 51 were met when the appellants provided the trial judge wi......
-
Vega v. EASTERN COURTYARD ASSOCIATES, No. 33932
...660 P.2d 1013, 1015 (1983))); Brannan v. Nevada Rock & Sand, 108 Nev. 23, 26-27, 823 P.2d 291, 293 (1992); Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 690, 669 P.2d 709, 710 10. 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709. 11. Id. at 690, 669 P.2d at 710-11. 12. 105 Nev. 48, 769 P.2d 53 (1989). 13. Id. at 51-5......
-
Cox v. Copperfield, 76422
...(quoting Mahan v. Hafen, 76 Nev. 220, 225, 351 P.2d 617, 620 (I960)), which is within its province to do. Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 690, 669 P.2d 709, 711 (1983) (holding that proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury). Otherwise stated, the Coxes failed to establis......