Brooks v. Menaugh
| Decision Date | 05 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 25404.,25404. |
| Citation | 284 S.W. 803 |
| Parties | BROOKS v. MENAUGH et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles B. Davis, Judge.
Action by Mary Brooks against Harry Menaugh and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
P. A. Richards and Earl M. Pirkey, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
Plaintiff brought suit for damages on account of personal injuries received by her while riding in an automobile as the guest of Harry Menaugh, defendant, when the automobile driven by Menaugh either collided with an automobile driven by defendant Wesley Dent, or, in order to avoid collision with the automobile of Wesley Dent, he was caused to drive across a sidewalk and into a fence.
Harry Menaugh was the son-in-law of Mary Brooks, who with her daughter, Harry's wife, was in his car, as he was driving east on the south side of Winnebago street in St. Louis. His automobile approached California street, running north and south, on which were street car tracks. At that time Dent was driving north on the east side of California street. When the two automobiles reached the intersection, at or near the same time, the car of Menaugh was caused to turn to the northeast and ran violently across the sidewalk at the northeast corner and into a fence, breaking down a fence post. The car of Dent collided with it either before or after that. Dent was driving a Ford car and Menaugh was driving a Willys-Knight.
An ordinance introduced provided that a driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection of a public highway shall have the right of way over vehicles approaching from the left. Therefore, if the two cars arrived at the intersection at the same time, the Ford driven by Dent had the right of way over the Willys-Knight driven by Menaugh.
Menaugh testified that when he came to California avenue his intention was to turn and drive north on that street. He saw the Ford coming, and, being afraid it would hit his car in the rear, he speeded up in order to get across and turned into the sidewalk to avoid a corn-Sion. He ran across the sidewalk and into the fence and his car "bounced back." As it did so, Dent's car struck his car with such force as to make a big dent on the rear door. According to his testimony he reached the intersection first.
Dent testified that he reached the intersection first, thought he had plenty of time to cross Winnebago street, and was two-thirds of the way across when Menaugh's machine swung around in front of him; that his left fender just barely touched the right fender of the other car; and that he swung around to the right and stopped on Winnebago street about 10 feet from the corner.
There was evidence tending to show that both cars were running at a speed in excess of the limit provided by ordinance, 10 miles an hour. The ordinance was pleaded and introduced in evidence. There was also evidence that neither of the drivers sounded his gong as he approached the crossing. The evidence tended to show that both of them were negligent in those respects, and some evidence tended to show that they failed to exercise due care to avoid the collision after the danger of a collision was apparent.
The negligence alleged in the petition, by both defendants, was that they were running at excessive speed in violation of the ordinance and failing to use diligence to stop or turn the cars so as to avoid collision, and failure to sound any warning of their approach to the crossing. The jury returned a verdict in favor of both defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.
I. Error is assigned to the giving of instruction 1 on behalf of defendant Dent. That instruction told the jury that, if Dent's automobile reached the south boundary line of Winnebago street before or at the time the other car reached the west boundary of California street, it was the duty of Menaugh to exercise a very high degree of care, to have his car under control, and give Dent the right of way, and they must find the defendant Dent was not guilty of any negligence and render a verdict in his favor. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barr v. Nafziger Baking Co., 29575.
...negligence on respondent's part, if there was any such, was no defense. Spindler v. Wells (Mo.), 276 S.W. 387; Brooks v. Menaugh (Mo.), 284 S.W. 803; Yakoboski v. Wells (Mo. App.), 253 S.W. 72. (3) The court did not err in giving Instruction 7 at the instance of appellant's codefendant Hort......
-
Leek v. Dillard
... ... 105, 22 N.C.C.A. 205; St. John v. Kepler, 360 Pa. 528, 61 A.2d 875; Breeden v. Cudahy Packing Co., 233 Ala. 369, 171 So. 632 ... 9 Brooks v. Menaugh, Mo., 284 S.W. 803, 805(7); Champieux v. Miller, Mo., 255 S.W.2d 794; Cox v. Wrinkle, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 648, 654; annotation 21 A.L.R.2d 95, ... ...
-
McCombs v. Ellsberry
...relieve party arriving first at intersection from duty to exercise highest degree of care for safety of his passenger or guest. Brooks v. Menaugh, 284 S.W. 804; Pappas Pie Co. v. Stroh, 67 S.W.2d 793. Appellant Fellis was owner and driver of the automobile; respondent Mrs. McCombs was his p......
- State v. Bongard