Greyhound Corp. v. Townsend

Citation108 So.2d 208,234 Miss. 839
Decision Date12 January 1959
Docket NumberNo. 40974,40974
PartiesThe GREYHOUND CORPORATION v. James TOWNSEND.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

Welch, Gibbes & Graves, Lowell W. Tew, Laurel, for appellant.

A. S. Scott, Jr., A. S. Scott, Sr., Laurel, for appellee.

LEE, Justice.

The Greyhound Corporation appealed from a verdict and judgment of the Circuit Court of Jones County by which James Townsend was awarded the sum of $1,500 as damages to his automobile on account of the alleged negligence of the corporation.

The pleadings and evidence made a simple issue as to whether the driver of one of the defendant's buses negligently turned his vehicle to the left as the plaintiff's car was about to pass the bus, thereby forcing the car off of the pavement and resulting in extensive damages to it.

The plaintiff and his brother-in-law, Wendel Gavin, testified that, on July 29, 1957, they were returning on Highway 11 from Harvey, Louisiana, to their home near Bay Springs in Townsend's monthold Ford car, with Gavin driving and Townsend sitting on the right side. Immediately in front of the car was a Greyhound bus, and immediately in front of the bus was a truck of the Dickey Clay & Manufacturing Company. Behind the Ford was another Greyhound bus, and immediately behind it there was another Dickey Clay & Manufacturing Company truck. The vehicles proceeded in that order at a speed of 40 to 50 miles an hour for a distance of 2 or 3 miles and came to level country where the visibility was good for approximately a mile. Gavin, desiring to pass, pulled to the left, sounded his horn, increased his speed to 50 or 55 miles an hour, and started around the bus. When the car got alongside the bus and about the middle of the same, the driver of the bus, without giving any signal, suddenly pulled to the left into the lane in which the Ford was trying to pass. Gavin blew his horn again, but, as the bus did not change its course, he had to drive onto the shoulder or be struck by the bus. Before he could bring the car to a stop, it struck a piling and was turned back in the direction from which it had come. The bus passed the truck and proceeded without stopping. Townsend testified positively that the drive of the bus did not give a signal, and Gavin testified that, if the driver sounded his horn, he did not hear it.

The plaintiff testified that the rear panel on the left side was crushed in, the drive shaft was torn out, the frame was bent, and two tires were burst. He offered in evidence a copy of the bill for repairs from Horn Motor Company in the amount of $447.48 as the 'actual repairs'; and testified that he was required to rent a car at $10 per day for about 30 days. Benton H. Matthews, a mechanic with 21 years of experience, testified that the frame was pretty badly bent, and he estimated that the car, by reason of the accident, was depreciated about $1,000 in value. It was his opinion also that the car, before the wreck, was worth between $2,500 and $2,600.

The evidence for the defendant was directly contradictory of the plaintiff's version. S. O. Williamson, the driver of the first Dickey truck, testified that he saw the Greyhound bus behind him, and when the road became open, he motioned the driver 'to come on by'; and that, as the driver was doing so, he heard tires 'squalling'. When the witness got to where he could see in his mirror, the Ford was in a spin. He had not seen the car until that time. Volney B. Langston, the driver of the particular bus, testified that he checked his rearview mirror, pulled over on the left side of the road, sounded his horn, and passed the truck. At no time did he see the Ford, and he did not know that it had been damaged. Albert Henson, the driver of the second Greyhound bus, and J. W. Williams, driving the second Dickey truck, both of which vehicles were behind the Ford, testified that the car passed them at a high rate of speed, and, when it reached the place where the accident occurred, the Greyhound bus was passing the truck, and the Ford had no place to go. As the result the driver applied his brakes, slid onto the shoulder, and, in a swinging motion, hit the post.

Thus it appears that the evidence, pro and con, was in sharp conflict; and obviously it was necessary that the issue should be determined by the jury. Consequently, the court properly refused ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Lum, 43754
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1966
    ...Maupin v. Dennis, 175 So.2d 130 (Miss.1965); Morris v. Huff, 238 Miss. 111, 117 So.2d 800 (1960); Greyhound Corp. v. Townsend, 234 Miss. 839, 108 So.2d 208, 853 (1959); Belk v. Rosamond, 213 Miss. 633, 57 So.2d 461 (1952); McDonald v. Moore, 159 Miss. 326, 131 So. 824 (1931). Cf. Bush v. Wa......
  • Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Miller Oil Purchasing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 24, 1982
    ...damages may be recovered where there is malice, fraud, oppression, willful wrong or gross negligence. See Greyhound Corp. v. Townsend, 234 Miss. 839, 108 So.2d 208 (1959); Bradley v. Associates Discount Corp., 230 Miss. 131, 92 So.2d 468 (1957); Bounds v. Watts, 159 Miss. 307, 131 So. 804 (......
  • Stern v. Abramson
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • May 6, 1977
    ...Mayer, 9 N.J.Misc. 918, 154 A. 10 (Cir.Ct.1931), aff'd 10 N.J.Misc. 219, 158 A. 411 (Sup.Ct.1932). See also, Greyhound Corp. v. Townsend, 234 Miss. 839, 108 So.2d 208 (Sup.Ct.1959); Wright v. Everett, 197 Va. 608, 90 S.E.2d 855 (Sup.Ct.1956). A defendant's financial condition would be irrel......
  • Woodall v. Ross
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1975
    ...damages may be recovered where there is malice, fraud, oppression, willful wrong or gross negligence. See Greyhound Corp. v. Townsend, 234 Miss. 839, 108 So.2d 208 (1959); Bradley v. Associates Discount Corp., 230 Miss. 131, 92 So.2d 468 (1957); Bounds v. Watts, 159 Miss. 307, 131 So. 804 (......
  • 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