Buntyn v. Robinson, 40744
| Decision Date | 21 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 40744,40744 |
| Citation | 102 So.2d 126,233 Miss. 360 |
| Parties | Jerry H. BUNTYN v. Neute ROBINSON. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Snow, Covington & Shows, Meridian, for appellant.
Roy N. Lee, Forrest, for appellee.
Appellee, plaintiff below, sued appellant, defendant below, for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision wherein the negligence charged was (1) excessive speed, (2) failure to exercise control over his automobile, and (3) unlawfully operating his automobile immediately behind another being driven by one Holder, a codefendant as to whom appellee suffered a voluntary nonsuit. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for appellee on the issue for liability, and upon the jury's assessment of damages a judgment was entered against appellant.
The sole question is whether the lower court erred in directing a verdict for appellee on the issue of liability.
The rule to be applied in determining whether a party is entitled to a directed verdict has been stated in many of our cases. The Court must look solely to the testimony in behalf of the party against whom the directed verdict is requested, and, taking that testimony as true, along with all reasonable inferences which could be drawn therefrom favorable to said party, if it could support a verdict for him, the directed verdict should not be given. We state the facts with this rule in mind, which is to say, that the evidence favorable to appellee will not be stated. We do not decide whether the evidence is overwhelming in favor of appellee. That question is not before us. Even where the evidence is such that a judgment for the adverse party would have to be set aside as being contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it does not necessarily follow that a party is entitled to a directed verdict. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Pittman, 169 Miss. 667, 153 So. 382; Fore v. Alabama & V. Railway Co., 87 Miss. 211, 39 So. 493, 690.
The collision occurred at night about 50 feet south of the intersection of Highway 15 and a gravel road known as Stratton Road. Highway 15 is paved and runs north and south from Union to Decatur. The Stratton Road intersects Highway 15 at a slight angle so that one approaching Highway 15 from the west travels a few degrees south of due east until within about 80 feet of Highway 15. In the center of Stratton Road immediately west of Highway 15 is a neutral ground covered with grass and there are two graveled approaches to Highway 15, one curving left for use when turning north on Highway 15, and one curving right for use in turning south on Highway 15. About 140 feet north of the center of the said intersection is the crest of a grade from which Highway 15 Slopes down grade about a half mile, the crest of this grade being six feet higher than the grade at the intersection. Highway 15 is straight both north and south of the intersection as far as one can see.
Appellant was traveling south on Highway 15 at a speed of about 55 miles per hour following an automobile driven by one Holder, who was also going south on Highway 15 at about 55 miles per hour. As the Holder automobile approached the intersection, appellee's automobile, driven by one Slaughter, came into the highway from the west off of the Stratton Road, two or three car lengths in front of Holder's automobile and appellee's automobile went over the center line so that Holder had to turn left off the highway onto the gravel to go around appellee's automobile. Holder saw no lights on appellee's automobile. Appellant saw Holder's brake lights flash when Holder started around appellee's vehicle, but did not see appellee's automobile until Holder went around it, at which time appellee's automobile was an estimated 40 or 50 feet in front of appellant, and was headed south of Highway 15 straddling the center line with no taillights burning, and traveling slowly. Appellant applied his brakes and skidded an undetermined distance staight down his right, or west, side of the highway and struck the rear of appellee's automobile. The left front of appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Necaise v. Chrysler Corporation
...So.2d 556; Richardson v. Liddell, 222 Miss. 172, 75 So.2d 468; Mock v. Natchez Garden Club, 230 Miss. 377, 92 So.2d 562; Buntyn v. Robinson, 233 Miss. 360, 102 So.2d 126. See also Stricklin v. Harvey, 181 Miss. 606, 179 So. 345, and the cases therein 9 See Note 7, supra. 10 See Nichols v. N......
-
Rucker v. Hopkins
...New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad v. Thornton, 247 Miss. 616, 622, 156 So.2d 598, 600 (1963), quoting Buntyn v. Robinson, 233 Miss. 360, 362-363, 102 So.2d 126, 127 (1958), the Court "We do not decide whether the evidence is overwhelming in favor of appellee. That question is not before u......
-
Kettle v. Musser's Potato Chips, Inc., 42918
...have stumbled in front of him. This was not a statement by him of a positive and definite fact, but only of conjecture. (Buntyn v. Robinson, 233 Miss. 360, 102 So.2d 126.) It was pure conjecture because he had repeatedly vowed and declared that he did not even see Mrs. Raines before he hit ......
-
Meaut v. Langlinais
...al., 227 Miss. 625, 86 So.2d 493; Arnold et al. v. Reece, a Minor, etc., 229 Miss. 862, 92 So.2d 237. In the case of Buntyn v. Robinson, 233 Miss. 360, 102 So.2d 126, 127, after stating the above-mentioned rule, the Court said: 'Even where the evidence is such that a judgment for the advers......