Hall v. Caughran

• Decision Date: 18 May 1931
• Docket Number: 29461
• Citation: 160 Miss. 571,134 So. 576
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HALL et al. v. CAUGHRAN

134 So. 576

160 Miss. 571

HALL et al. v. CAUGHRAN

No. 29461

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 18, 1931

Division A

1 AUTOMOBILES.

In crossing street or highway, pedestrian must exercise care which ordinarily careful man would exercise for his own safety under similar circumstances.

2 AUTOMOBILES.

Pedestrian is not required, under all circumstances, to look for approaching automobiles before crossing street or highway.

3 AUTOMOBILES.

Whether pedestrian struck by automobile while crossing highway in rural community was negligent in failing to look for approaching automobiles held for jury.

HON. C. P. LONG, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Lee county, HON. C. P. LONG, Judge.

Action by Monts Hall and others against W. P. Caughran. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded for reassessment of damages.

Reversed and remanded.

Geo. T. & Chas. S. Mitchell, of Tupelo, for appellants.

Questions of negligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause are questions for the jury to determine, under all the facts of the case.

Byrnes v. City of Jackson, 105 So. 862.

A traveler is not necessarily negligent because he attempts to cross a street without first looking or listening to ascertain whether an automobile is approaching. Such a traveler has a right to assume that other persons using the highway with him will exercise a proper degree of care.

Pertell v. Jordan, 31 N.E. 652; Hennessey v. Taylor, 76 N.E. 224; McDonald v. Bowditch, 87 N.E. 585; Shapleigh v. Wyman, 132 Miss. 118; Thompson on Negligence (Suppl., p. 203); Rogers v. Phillips, 92 N.E. 327.

Blair & Anderson, of Tupelo, for appellee.

It is the duty of a foot-passenger to look both ways before starting to cross a street, particularly when the street over which he intends to pass is a busy thoroughfare in the heart of the business district of a great city.

Thompson v. White, 56 Cal.App. 173, 204 P. 561; Davis v. Breuner Co., 167 Cal. 683, 140 P. 586 (1914); Mayer v. Anderson, 36 Cal.App. 740, 173 P. 174 (1918).

The plaintiff's duty in the exercise of reasonable care was, before she attempted to cross the highway, to look at the intersecting highways ahead of her and the highway behind in such manner and to such extent as a reasonably prudent person under like circumstances would look, so as to determine that no team, automobile, motorcycle, or bicycle was in such proximity if properly managed, as to endanger her safety in crossing.

Palmer v. Spencer, 96 Conn. 631, 115 A. 82; Deal v. Snyder, 203 Mich. 273, 168 N.W. 973 (1918); McCormick v. Hesser, 77 N. J. L. 173, 71 A. 55.

The rule of ordinary care apparently requires a pedestrian, before starting to cross a street between street intersection, to look for approaching vehicles.

Lowry v. Smith, 199 Mo.App. 163, 198 S.W. 437; Craft v. Stone, 124 N.E. 473; Harder v. Mathews, 67 Wash. 487, 121 P. 983.

One who attempts to cross a street diagonally at a point other than a crosswalk, having his ears covered and looking straight ahead, without heed to traffic on the street, is negligent, and cannot recover for injuries received by being run down by a passing team.

Peterson v. P. Ballentine & Sons, 205 N.Y. 29, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1147, 98 N.E. 202.

The pedestrian before crossing frequently traveled highway owes duty to himself as well as passing motorist to use every precaution before crossing a highway and the driver of motor vehicles have a right to presume that a pedestrian would exercise the care required of him.

Knapp v. Barrett, 110 N.E. 428; Peterson v. Vallentine, 205 N.Y. 28, 98 N.E. 202; Mastin v. City of New York, 201 N.Y. 81, 94 N.E. 611.

It was negligence as a matter of law for Mrs. Hall to attempt to cross this frequently traveled highway without exercising her faculties of sight and hearing.

Knapp v. Barrett, 110 N.E. 428; Moss v. Boynton, 44 Cal.App. 474, 186 P. 631; Berry Automobile (4 Ed.), section 317.

Ordinarily the degree of negligence attributable to injured persons is a question for the jury but where the person injured exercised no care whatever for his own safety then the court can by instruction characterize his negligence as gross.

G. & S. I. R. R. Co. v. Adkinson, 117 Miss. 118, 77 So. 954.

OPINION

Smith, C. J.

Mrs. Hall, while walking toward the east on one side of a public highway in a rural community, the extent of the traffic on which does not appear, attempted to cross to the other side of the highway, and was struck and killed by an automobile, going west, owned by the appellee and driven by his servant; and this suit is by her heirs for the recovery of damages for her death. There was a verdict and judgment for the appellants for two hundred and fifty dollars, from which they have brought the case to this court.

The appellants' complaint is that the judgment is inadequate,...