Critelli v. Blair, 44576
Decision Date | 06 November 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 44576,44576 |
Citation | 203 So.2d 604 |
Parties | Mario S. CRITELLI v. Milton BLAIR, Minor, by Marie Blair, Mother and Next Friend. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Dabney & Dabney, Vicksburg, for appellant.
Prewitt, Bullard & Braddock, Vicksburg, for appellee.
Milton Blair, a minor, by his mother and next friend, brought suit against Mario S. Critelli, Linda D. Uzzle, and Thomas L. Beavers in the Circuit Court of Warren County for injuries sustained in an automobile-truck collision while Blair was a guest passenger in the automobile driven by Beavers. After a full trial the jury returned a verdict against Mario Critelli and Thomas L. Beavers for $3,250. Critelli was the only defendant who was represented by counsel at the trial and the only defendant who contested the suit. Critelli is the only defendant appealing from the judgment of the court below.
The accident in which the appellee was injured occurred about 1 p.m. on January 11, 1966, on Grove Street in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Grove Street runs east and west, and the point of impact was just east of the intersection of Grove Street and Third Street North. Grove Street is a paved street, thirty feet wide from curb to curb. It is a three-lane street having a parking lane on the south side and two traffic lanes. The north lane of the street is the westbound traffic lane, and the center lane is the eastbound traffic lane. There are 'No Parking This Side of Street' signs along the north side of Grove Street.
On the afternoon of January 11, which was a clear and dry day, Mrs. Linda Uzzle temporarily stopped her Pontiac automobile in the westbound traffic lane next to the north curb of Grove Street in order to let out Patricia Novels at her home. She observed the signs saying 'No Parking This Side of Street' and kept the motor running. The right front door was not completely closed and she leaned over to close the door.
An old Chevrolet was parked on the south side of Grove Street almost opposite the Uzzle automobile. Beavers was driving his 1956 Ford west on Grove Street, and Milton Blair, appellee, was sitting on the front seat with Beavers listening to the radio. Critelli was traveling east on Grove Street in his 1962 Ford pickup truck.
Beavers said the noticed the Uzzle Pontiac stopped on the north side of Grove Street when he was about 30 feet from it and he pulled out to go around it. When the center of his car was opposite and about a foot from the front of the Uzzle car, his car collided with the Critelli truck. Beavers testified that he may have been a little over the center of the street when the left front of his car hit the left front of the Ford pickup truck. The force of the impact caused the rear end of the Ford truck to swing around to the south, and the right rear of the Beavers' Ford was forced into the left front door of the Uzzle Pontiac.
City Policeman J. H. Guimbellot officially investigated this accident. He testified that Grove Street was thirty feet wide from curb to curb, that there were 'No Parking' signs up and down the north side of Grove Street, that the north lane of Grove Street was the westbound traffic lane, that the middle lane was the eastbound traffic lane, and that the only legal parking lane was along the south side of Grove Street. He arrived on the scene shortly after the accident before the cars had been moved. He observed that Beavers' Ford was partially over what would be the center of Grove Street and partially in the south half of the street, that the Uzzle Pontiac was on the north side of Grove Street, and that the rear bumper of Critelli's Ford pickup was just about on the curb of the south side of Grove Street.
All witnesses, mrs. Uzzle, Beavers, Blair,
All witnesses, Mrs. Uzzle, Beavers, Blair, that they knew that there were 'No. Parking' signs along the north side of Grove Street.
Mrs. Linda Uzzle testified that she saw in her rearview mirror that Beavers was too close to her car as he passed 'and I felt pretty sure that he was going to hit it.' She didn't see the Critelli truck till after the collision.
The specific charges of negligence against all three defendants are set forth in the Plaintiff's declaration as follows:
Seven errors were assigned by Appellant Critelli. The only error assigned that merits extended discussion was the granting of Instructions 2, 4 and 6 for the plaintiff.
Instruction No. 2 is as follows:
'The Court instructs the jury for the Plaintiff, that the law is that when two people operating motor vehicles approach each traveling upon the streets in opposite directors that it is the duty of each to turn his motor vehicle reasonably to his right side, and if you believe from the preponderance of the evidence in this case that the Defendant, Mario S. Critelli, was meeting the Beavers' automobile, on Grove Street, in Vicksburg, Mississippi, on January 11, 1966, about 1 P.M., wherein Plaintiff was a passenger, and that Mario Critelli, Defendant, failed to reasonably turn his truck to the right on said Grove Street and that such failure, if any, to turn said truck to the right, if any, resulted in a collision between the Beavers' automobile and the Critelli truck then it is your sworn duty to find for the Plaintiff, and against Mario S. Critelli, Defendant.'
If such an instruction were applicable, the authority for such an instruction would be Section 8181 and 8182, Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated. But ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley
...indication in what manner the defendant was negligent." Rucker v. Hopkins, 499 So.2d 766, 772 (Miss.1986); see also, Critelli v. Blair, 203 So.2d 604, 607-608 (Miss.1967). We are reminded as well we have said such abstract instructions may be saved only if other instructions correctly defin......
-
Vines v. Windham
...an instruction charging negligence or contributory negligence must define those acts which would constitute such. In Critelli v. Blair, 203 So.2d 604 (Miss.1967), this Court condemned an instruction which read much like Instruction D-16 in this case. Critelli The next instruction complained......
-
Mills v. Barnhill, 58561
...proven in order to authorize recovery. Verdicts based on "general" or "any" negligence have not been allowed to stand. Critelli v. Blair, 203 So.2d 604, 607 (Miss.1967); Merchants Co. v. Hutchinson, 186 So.2d 760, 763 (Miss.1966); Bush Construction Co. v. Walters, 254 Miss. 266, 274-75, 179......