City of Meridian v. King

Decision Date21 December 1942
Docket Number35186.
Citation11 So.2d 205,194 Miss. 162
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesCITY OF MERIDIAN v. KING.

Suggestion of Error Overruled Feb. 15, 1943.

See 11 So.2d 830.

Robert R. Wallace and Jacobson, Snow & Covington, all of Meridian, for appellant.

Reily & Parker and Williamson & Riddell, all of Meridian for appellee.

ANDERSON Presiding Justice.

Appellee King brought this action in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County against appellant City of Meridian to recover damages for an injury he received while driving his automobile in the nighttime at the intersection of Seventeenth Avenue and Front Street, two much traveled thoroughfares of the City. He recovered a judgment in the sum of $2,500, from which the City prosecutes this appeal.

The principal ground relied on for reversal is that the Court erred in refusing the City's request for a directed verdict. The giving of two of the instructions granted the plaintiff is also assigned and argued as error.

Between 11 and 12 o'clock at night the plaintiff was driving his automobile east on Front Street and at its intersection with Seventeenth Avenue he ran into a street barricade and was injured. Recovery was sought on two grounds, (1) that the intersection was so constructed and maintained by the City as to be dangerous to the traveling public, and (2) whether properly constructed or not it was a dangerous intersection and the City was due to post one or more adequate warnings of the danger by a red light or otherwise. There was no evidence tending to show that the construction of the crossing itself was dangerous to the traveling public. The issue of fact made by the evidence was whether or not it should have been and was properly guarded by a red light or otherwise to prevent collision with the barricade on the east side of Seventeenth Avenue, hereinafter described. Seventeenth Avenue runs north and south, and Front Street east and west. West of the intersection Front Street is 54 feet and 3 inches wide, while east of the intersection it is 30 feet and 4 inches wide. This difference was caused by a right angle cut-down of 23 feet and 11 inches in Front Street on the east side of the intersection and on the south side of Front Street. Along this 23 feet and 11 inches there was erected a concrete barricade wall 3 feet and 4 inches high, and against this wall on the west was a dirt embankment about 1 1/2 feet high leaving the concrete...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • 4-County Elec. Power Ass'n v. Clardy
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1954
    ...any error in one of the instructions referring to the other instructions for a definition of negligence. City of Meridian v. King, 1942, 194 Miss. 162, 175, 11 So.2d 205, 830. It is also argued that this instruction negatived appellant's defenses of intervening cause and assumption of risk.......
  • Ming v. City of Jackson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 22, 1947
    ... ... finding negligence. Had they accepted defendant's ... testimony no negligence could be found. City of Meridian ... v. Crook, 109 Miss. 700, 69 So. 182, L.R.A.1916A, 482; ... Pomes v. McComb City, 121 Miss. 425, 83 So. 836; ... City of Hazlehurst v. Mathews, ... v. Lehr, 190 ... Miss, 600, 625, 199 So. 294, 1 So.2d 242; City of Greenville ... v. Laury, supra; City of Meridian v. King, 194 Miss ... 162, 11 So.2d 205, 830 ... We ... have frequently emphasized the fact that danger and ... negligence are not ... ...
  • Kirkland v. Harrison, 39243
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 11, 1954
    ...error complained of is not such as to require a reversal of the judgment on account of the giving of the instruction. City of Meridian v. King, 194 Miss. 162, 11 So.2d 205, 11 So.2d 830; Johns-Mansville Products Corp. v. Cather, 208 Miss. 268, 44 So.2d Finally the appellant complains of the......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 24, 1990
    ...a requested instruction not ground for reversal. Peel v. Gulf Transport Co., 252 Miss. 797, 174 So.2d 377 (1965); City of Meridian v. King, 194 Miss. 162, 11 So.2d 205, sugg. of error o'ruled 11 So.2d 830 Smith's third assignment argues the failure of the court to grant Instruction D-7: JUR......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT