Clark v. Weathers

• Decision Date: 21 October 1916
• Docket Number: 31149
• Citation: 159 N.W. 585,178 Iowa 97
• Parties: W. L. CLARK, Appellant, v. JOE WEATHERS et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

159 N.W. 585

178 Iowa 97

W. L. CLARK, Appellant, v. JOE WEATHERS et al., Appellees

No. 31149

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 21, 1916

Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--W. G. SEARS, Judge.

ACTION for damages resulted in a directed verdict for defendant and judgment thereon. The plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Shull Gill, Sammis & Stilwell, for appellant.

Griffin & Page and H. B. Walling, for appellees.

LADD J. EVANS, C. J., GAYNOR and SALINGER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

LADD, J.

The complaint is that defendants were negligent in not stopping their automobile before colliding with the rear of that of plaintiff. The sole issue is whether the evidence was such that this issue, with that of contributory negligence, should have been submitted to the jury. A cousin of plaintiff's was driving a five passenger Ford, with his wife and two daughters in the rear seat, and plaintiff with him in the front seat. They had started from their home about a half mile east of Anthon, shortly after noon, for Rodney; and, as they neared the approach to the bridge over the Little Sioux River, the automobile was moving at the rate of from 12 to 15 miles per hour. The car was slowed down to about 10 miles an hour, and to 4 to 6 miles when the driver began to bring it to a standstill. This was done owing to two teams, coming from the other end of the bridge, and near the east end about 18 inches from the north side. Neither the driver nor plaintiff was aware of defendants' car being in the rear, nor did either give any signal or other warning that the car was about to be stopped. But defendants' automobile (Cadillac) came against the rear end of plaintiff's, causing the injuries complained of. The situation was such that defendants must have seen the car ahead. The driver of plaintiff's car testified:

"I had got stopped probably half a minute before this auto struck. It was not over a minute at the longest . . . I think if I had not had my foot on the brake--I hadn't taken my foot off the brake yet--I think this heavy car would have pushed us into the railing and possibly over the bridge. It pushed and shoved our car straight ahead. . . . I did not use the emergency brake. The car is 11 or 12 feet long. From the time I applied the brake until it stopped, it went between 11 and 12 feet. . . . Think I had stopped my car a half minute before the collision; something like that. My best judgment is that the car had come to a complete standstill a good half minute before the collision. I could not measure it in seconds."

Plaintiff testified:

"By the time the car was stopped, he came into us. He hadn't taken his foot off the brake yet. About a minute, as near as I could judge, by the time the car came into us--probably a minute or a half a minute. I could not say it was standing still a full minute before we were hit, but nearly so. We came to a standstill. It was past a half minute."

The testimony of the driver's daughter was substantially the same; but his wife, who sat in the back seat, testified that, as the car was about to stop, she looked back and saw defendants' car following at the distance of about 200 feet, at a speed of 25 or 30 miles an hour, and supposed it would be stopped.

"Q. How long was that before the car was stopped? A. Not a minute. Our car was going to stop when I looked back; just before it stopped. I looked back and saw him coming at quite a rate of speed about 200 feet back, and then in something like a minute he struck our car. I would judge his rate of speed between 25 and 30 miles an hour. It did not seem to be a minute before he was right on to us. It was not a minute, --less than a minute."

Such was the evidence on the...