Brown v. Greenwood

• Decision Date: 18 May 1945
• Docket Number: No. 17335.,17335.
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. GREENWOOD.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

116 Ind.App. 112
60 N.E.2d 152

BROWN et al.
v.
GREENWOOD.

No. 17335.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

April 2, 1945.
Rehearing Denied May 18, 1945.

Appeal from Superior Court, Vigo County; Albert R. Owens, Judge.

Action by Roe Greenwood against Robert Brown and Gilbert Brown to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

[60 N.E.2d 153]

Beasley, O'Brien, Lewis & Beasley, of Terre Haute, for appellants.

Aikman, Miller & Causey and Ernest M. Wright, all of Terre Haute, for appellee.

ROYSE, Judge.

Appellee sued appellants for damages on account of injuries received arising out of an automobile accident on Wabash Avenue in the City of Terre Haute. The cause was tried to a jury; twenty-six interrogatories properly submitted were answered by the jury. A general verdict was returned in favor of appellee for $2,000. The trial court overruled appellant's motion for judgment on the interrogatories notwithstanding the general verdict, and rendered judgment against appellants on the general verdict.

The sole error assigned here is that the trial court erred in overruling the separate and several motions of appellants for judgment on the answers to the interrogatories submitted to the jury.

The complaint, in substance, alleges the existence of U. S. Highway No. 41, and that said highway is also known as Wabash Avenue in the City of Terre Haute; that on December 5, 1942 appellant Gilbert Brown was the owner of a coal truck and on said date appellant Robert Brown was driving said truck; that the appellants were engaged in the business of hauling coal. It is then alleged as follows:

On said date and more than one-half hour before sunrise and at a time when there was not sufficient light to render such truck clearly discernible a distance of five hundred (500) feet and when the atmosphere was foggy and visibility thereby further impeded, the defendants then and there with knowledge of the conditions herein alleged parked said automobile and allowed said automobile to remain so parked at a point on Wabash Avenue adjacent to the north curb line thereof and between Rose Avenue and Home Avenue intersections with Wabash Avenue.

‘At such time and place and in such conditions and with motor vehicles with lighted headlights approaching from the west, plaintiff drove his automobile with lighted headlights in a westerly direction along Wabash Avenue, parallel with and about six or seven feet from the north curb of such street and then and there because of the negligence of defendants ran into and collided with the rear end of said truck

[60 N.E.2d 154]

and sustained injuries as hereinafter alleged.

‘Plaintiff says that defendant parked said truck and allowed the same to remain parked along said highway at such time without a lighted tail lamp on the rear thereof which would emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred (500) feet; and negligently parked said truck and allowed the same to remain so parked without giving any warning of any kind by signal light or otherwise of such truck being so parked; and negligently parked said truck and allowed the same to remain so parked without a proper reflector or reflectors mounted on the rear of said truck; and negligently parked said truck and allowed the same to remain so parked without any signals or warning and at a location and in conditions where the defendants well knew said truck likely would not be seen and travelers along said highway thereby caused to collide with it.’

Then follows a description of the injuries sustained by appellee. It is then averred:

‘Said collision and all said injuries are the proximate result of the negligence above set out and of each separate act and omission of negligence separately and severally considered.

‘By reason of the premises plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $15,000.00.’

Appellants by their answer denied the allegations of negligence contained in the complaint.

The interrogatories and the answers of the jury thereto are as follows:

‘Interrogatory No. 1.

At the time of the accident, was there a lighted tail lamp on the rear of the truck?

Answer. Yes.

Interrogatory No. 2.

At the time of the accident, did the tail light on the truck have lens known as red...