Barreth v. Reno Bus Lines, Inc., 4377

• Decision Date: 12 April 1961
• Docket Number: No. 4377,4377
• Citation: 77 Nev. 196,360 P.2d 1037
• Parties: Albert BARRETH and Everett V. Burgess, Appellants, v. RENO BUS LINES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and William Braz, Respondents.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 1037

360 P.2d 1037

77 Nev. 196

Albert BARRETH and Everett V. Burgess, Appellants, v. RENO BUS LINES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and William Braz, Respondents.

No. 4377.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

April 12, 1961.

Nada Novakovich, Reno, for appellants.

Vargas, Dillon & Bartlett, Reno, for respondents.

PIKE, Justice.

At about 5:30 p. m. November 9, 1959 a southbound car owned and driven by appellant Burgess, with appellant Barreth as a passenger, collided with the left rear side of the passenger bus owned by respondent bus lines corporation and driven by respondent Braz, as said bus made an easterly turn across the highway.

Appellants brought suit against respondent bus lines and Braz, alleging that said bus had been driven in front of the automobile occupied by appellants and had made a sudden turn without giving any signal whatsoever, striking the car then driven by appellant Burgess. Appellants sought damages for personal injuries incurred by each of them, and Burgess also sought to recover for damage to his automobile.

The answer of respondents Reno Bus Lines, Inc. and Braz, besides denying negligence on the part of either, alleged as affirmative defenses (1) that the collision was caused solely and proximately by the negligence of Burgess; and (2) that Barreth and Burgess were guilty of contributory negligence.

By counterclaim respondent bus lines sought to recover from appellant Burgess for damage allegedly caused to respondent's bus by Burgess negligently running his automobile into said bus.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of respondent bus lines and Braz and against appellants herein. It also rendered a further verdict on the counterclaim of respondent bus lines in favor of said bus lines and against appellant Burgess in the sum of $1,288.19. Judgment was entered on said verdicts, and this appeal is from that judgment.

The accident occurred on U. S. Highway 395 at a point several miles south of Reno, Nevada. The testimony shows this portion of the paved highway to have been four lanes in width, with each lane separately marked by white lines for vehicular traffic, and with concrete islands in the center of the highway separating the north and southbound lanes. There was also a paved shoulder on each side of the highway. Respondent's bus with its lights on traveled south to its customary turning point and made a brief stop on its righthand or westerly shoulder, before making a lefthand turn. While making such lefthand turn and before the rear of the bus had cleared the center line of the highway, there was an impact between the left rear portion of the bus and the front end of the southbound car driven by appellant Burgess. Physical injuries were sustained by both appellants, and both vehicles were damaged.

Appellants contend that respondents' negligence was the sole proximate cause of the collision and that the 'verdict of the jury and judgment are against the manifest weight of the evidence and are plainly wrong and should be reversed.'

Generally the issue of proximate cause is one of fact and not one of law, and this case presents no exception to such general rule. Novack v. Hoppin, 77 Nev. ----, 359 P.2d 390. Accordingly, it was within the province of the jury, in reaching its verdict, to consider and pass upon the issues presented by the pleadings, including any negligence on the part of respondents as alleged in appellants' complaint, as well as any...