CC Moore Const. Co. v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 16 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 9833.,9833. |
| Citation | 119 F.2d 742 |
| Parties | C. C. MOORE CONST. CO., Inc., v. HAYES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
M. M. Roberts, of Hattiesburg, Miss., and Claude V. Hathorn, of Columbia, Miss., for appellant.
Lee D. Hall and Toxey Hall, both of Columbia, Miss., and Edmund B. Patterson, of Monticello, Miss., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
In October, 1938, C. C. Moore Construction Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, entered into contract with the State Highway Commission of Mississippi for the construction of 9.788 miles of road in Marion County, Mississippi. A new road was to be built between Prentiss and Columbia, Mississippi, and the section to be built by Moore was to extend north from Hawkins Avenue in the City of Columbia to the county line, and from that point another contractor was to build the road to Prentiss, the county seat of Jefferson Davis County. Moore's contract provided among other things that the contractor was to "provide, erect, and maintain all necessary barricades, sufficient red lights, approved danger signals and signs, provide a sufficient number of watchmen, and take all necessary precautions for the protection of the Work and Safety of the public."
C. C. Moore Construction Company proceeded to build the section of road contracted for, and on September 9, 1939, at the request of the field engineer of the State Highway Commission, the new section of State Highway No. 13 leading into Hawkins Avenue in the City of Columbia was opened to traffic, and the barricades at each end of the section were pulled aside. Although the section of highway built by Moore had not been finally accepted by the State Highway Commission it was practically completed and the road bed was in perfect condition. The contractor had little else to do before final acceptance except "blade" the roadway and water the sod along the sides of the road. The new section of road came to an end in Columbia at the point where it entered Hawkins Avenue, and the intersection thus made formed an inside curve to the right of from 120 to 127 degrees.
On Sunday, September 10, 1939, at about seven o'clock at night, George H. Hayes, Jr., John Williamson, and Juanita Parker left Prentiss, Mississippi, by automobile and drove along State Highway No. 13 toward Columbia, twenty-five miles away. Hayes was driving, and Williamson and Miss Parker were sitting on the front seat with him. The automobile was a practically new, 1939 Model Chevrolet Coach, with good headlights and brakes, and otherwise in excellent condition. At a point six miles north of Columbia, Hayes drove onto the new section of Highway No. 13, which had just been opened to traffic the previous day. This new section of gravel road was straight and level, and was "in perfectly good shape". Hayes continued to drive the car at a speed of from forty to forty-five miles per hour, and when he came to the place where the highway entered Hawkins Avenue, "He put on the brakes, but it was too late." The car skidded to the south side of Hawkins Avenue and turned over, and Hayes was thrown from the car and sorely injured.
Hayes brought suit against C. C. Moore Construction Company, Inc., alleging that it had before final completion of the highway opened it to public use, and had left an abrupt end and "negligently failed to erect any barricade and negligently failed to erect any warning sign or danger signal at or near the said sharp curve where said new highway abruptly ended at its intersection with Hawkins Avenue". The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered on that verdict the construction company has appealed.
The material facts in the case are not in controversy and it is admitted by the appellant construction company that no warning sign or other danger signal was placed along the highway at or near the point where the highway joined Hawkins Avenue at the 120 to 127 degree angle. Although the issue in the case is a relatively simple one, both the appellant and the appellee have written briefs, unduly long, in which they argued many varied theories at great length. Boiled down, the case turns upon the question of whether the contractor was under a duty to place warning signs or danger signals at or near the curve, and if so, whether its failure to place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathews v. Thompson (State Report Title: Matthews v. Thompson)
...So. 464; Myers v. Sanders, 189 Miss. 198, 194 So. 300; Dunn Construction Co. v. Nail, 192 Miss. 793, 7 So.2d 884; C. C. Moore Construction Co. v. Hayes, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 742, and McClendon v. Boyd Construction Co., Miss., 80 So.2d 32, which deal with the duty of contractors toward the trave......
-
Larson v. Heintz Const. Co.
...had also been violated. But here there was no independent duty. The situation is much like that presented in C. C. Moore Const. Co. v. Hayes, 5 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 742, 743. The defendant company had entered a contract with the state of Mississippi to build ten miles of roadway. One end of......
-
Shell Oil Co. v. Slade
...5 Cir., 53 F.2d 186; Brown v. Southern Railway, 5 Cir., 61 F.2d 399. Cf. Thompson v. City of Houma, 5 Cir., 76 F.2d 793; C. C. Moore v. Hayes, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 742. 3 Keith v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 168 Miss. 519, 151 So. 916; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Wallace, 27 Ga.App. 415, 108 S.E. 624;......
-
Gillentine v. Illinois Wesleyan University
...615, a non-resident corporation was carrying on the manufacturing of lumber in the state over a two-year period. C. C. Moore Construction Co. v. Hayes, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 742, which seems to involve the question of whether a highway contractor was negligent in not putting out flares rather th......