Donta v. Harper
Decision Date | 10 November 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 14806,14806 |
Citation | 168 W.Va. 237,283 S.E.2d 921 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Delmis DONTA v. R. Eugene HARPER. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "If, when instructions are read as a whole, it is apparent that they could not have misled the jury, the verdict will not be disturbed, though one may be susceptible of a doubtful construction while standing alone." Syllabus point 2, Whittaker v. Pauley, 154 W.Va. 1, 173 S.E.2d 76 (1970).
2. "The questions of negligence and contributory negligence are for the jury when the evidence is conflicting or when the facts, though undisputed, are such that reasonable men may draw different conclusions from them." Syllabus point 3, Davis v. Sargent, 138 W.Va. 861, 78 S.E.2d 217 (1953).
Beckett, Burford & James and Charles E. Heilmann, Huntington, for appellant.
Huddleston, Bolen, Beatty, Porter & Copen, R. Kemp Morton and Barbara Lee Ayres, Huntington, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Delmis Donta from an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County denying his motion to set aside a jury verdict and for a new trial in an automobile accident case. The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, contended then, and contends now, that the jury's verdict was contrary to the evidence and that the court erred in giving Defendant's Instruction 15. After examining the record we disagree, and we affirm the decision of the circuit court.
On January 8, 1973, the appellant driving a Ford station wagon, struck the side of R. Eugene Harper's car at the intersection of Eighth Street and Eleventh Avenue in Huntington. The appellant instituted this action for personal injuries resulting from the collision.
During trial the police officer who investigated the accident testified that the appellant had been traveling south on Eighth Street and that the defendant, Harper, had been going west on Tenth Avenue immediately prior to the accident. The collision had occurred in the intersection of the two streets, and the front of the appellant's car had struck the right fender of the defendant's car. The appellant testified that the defendant's car had "shot out of Tenth Avenue" in front of him and that he had had no opportunity to apply his brakes. The defendant testified that prior to entering the intersection he had stopped at a stop sign. He also testified that after he entered the intersection he stopped twice again, once to allow a car which was turning left to pass in front of him and once to allow a bus to pull over to the curb. When he proceeded the appellant struck him. He testified that from the time he first stopped, when he last looked to see if the intersection was clear, until the collision, five or six seconds elapsed.
At the conclusion of the evidence the court gave instructions proffered by counsel for the parties. Among the instructions given was Defendant's Instruction 15 which stated:
This instruction closely followed a Huntington City Ordinance (Sec. 2266) which provides:
Vehicle entering stop intersection.
(a) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer or traffic-control signal, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, in the event there is no crosswalk, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but, if none, then at the nearest point of the intersection roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersection roadway before entering the intersection.
(b) Such driver, after having stopped, shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from another highway or which is approaching so closely on such highway as to constitute an immediate hazard, but such driver having so yielded may proceed, and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle so proceeding. (4-25-60).
This ordinance contains language somewhat parallel to that contained in W.Va.Code, 17C-9-3, [1951].
The appellant's first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in giving Defendant's Instruction 15. The appellant argues that the defendant had an obligation to maintain a lookout even if he was within the intersection and that he had the duty to use due care in passing through the intersection. He takes the position that Defendant's Instruction 15, in effect, relieved the defendant of that obligation.
We agree that the fact that the defendant had the right of way in the intersection did not relieve him of the duty of exercising due care. We discussed such a situation in Adkins v. Smith, 142 W.Va. 772, 98 S.E.2d 712 (1957), and we concluded:
'... " Adkins v. Smith, supra, at 776, 98 S.E.2d at 715.
We do not agree, however, that the court improperly instructed the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robertson v. LeMaster
...draw difficult conclusions from them." Syllabus Point 3, Davis v. Sargent, 138 W.Va. 861, 78 S.E.2d 217 (1953). See Donta v. Harper, 168 W.Va. 237, 283 S.E.2d 921 (1981); Brown v. Bluefield Municipal Building Commission, 167 W.Va. 318, 280 S.E.2d 101 (1981); Board of Ed. of Ohio County v. V......
-
Michael on Behalf of Estate of Michael v. Sabado
...Syllabus Point 2, Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc., 176 W.Va. 492, 345 S.E.2d 791 (1986)." See also Syllabus Point 1, Donta v. Harper, 168 W.Va. 237, 283 S.E.2d 921 (1981). In this case, the other instructions given by the trial judge clearly informed the jury that it had the duty t......
-
McAllister v. Weirton Hosp. Co.
...which is not a binding instruction may have been susceptible of a doubtful construction while standing alone. See also Donta v. Harper, 283 S.E.2d 921 (W.Va.1981); Kingdon v. Stanley, 215 S.E.2d 462 (W.Va.1975); Lancaster v. Potomac Edison Co., 156 W.Va. 218, 192 S.E.2d 234 (1972); Wittaker......
-
Pickett v. Taylor
...does not relieve the operator of such vehicle from the duty to operate the same with reasonable care." See, e.g., Donta v. Harper, 168 W.Va. 237, 283 S.E.2d 921 (1981); Adkins v. Smith, 142 W.Va. 772, 98 S.E.2d 712 (1957); Burdette v. Henson, 96 W.Va. 31, 122 S.E. 356 (1924); see generally,......