Flowers v. Stringer

• Decision Date: 04 February 1929
• Docket Number: 27580
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: FLOWERS v. STRINGER et al. [*]

120 So. 198

152 Miss. 897

FLOWERS v. STRINGER et al. ^[*]

No. 27580

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 4, 1929

Division B

1. AUTOMOBILES. Finding that truck driver was not responsible for collision with automobile held against weight of evidence.

Finding of jury that truck driver operating truck at an excessive speed, and while he was drinking, was not responsible for collision with automobile, held against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

2. DAMAGES. Finding that automobile passenger was not injured in collision with truck held against weight of evidence.

Finding of jury that automobile passenger was not injured in collision between automobile and truck held against weight of evidence.

HON. A B. SCHAUTBEB, Special Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Smith county, HON. A. B. SCHAUBER Special Judge.

Suit by Mrs. John Flowers against Ed Stringer and others. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Collins & Collins and E. M. Lane, for appellant.

R. S. Tullos and J. D. Martin, for appellees.

OPINION

GRIFFITH, J.

This suit grew out of a collision between a passenger automobile driven by John Flowers, the husband of appellant, and an automobile truck driven by the appellee Little. The passenger automobile was going west, and had arrived at a point near the intersection with a road coming in from a northwesterly direction. The appellee Little was driving from the northwest at a high rate of speed, and he turned eastwardly at the intersection aforesaid into the east and west road, in such a manner and at such a rate of speed as to swing too far to his left, and, as a consequence, collided with the Flowers car about four feet from the north bank of the east and west road. That the collision was within four feet of the north bank of the east and west road is shown by the clear and emphatic testimony of three of the four eyewitnesses, two of them disinterested, and by the undisputed physical fact that immediately after the collision, the engine of the truck was within four feet of the north bank, or, as it was expressed, it was near enough that the witnesses could step from the engine of the truck to the said bank. The appellee Little admits that he was drinking, and the testimony was undisputed that he turned the sharp curve aforesaid at a speed greater than that allowed by law in turning such curves. It is established, therefore, that in at least two respects, he was operating the truck in violation of law. That he also violated the law at the time of the collision in that he had swung over to the north side of the east and west road, thereby placing himself on his wrong side,...