Hall v. Wallace, Civil 4455

Decision Date26 October 1942
Docket NumberCivil 4455
Citation59 Ariz. 503,130 P.2d 36
PartiesJ. H. HALL, RAYMOND HALL, PRODUCERS MINES, INC., and EDDIE PYEATT, Appellants, v. LOUIS L. WALLACE, JR., as Administrator of the Estate of HARRY E. TEETER, Deceased, Appellee
CourtArizona Supreme Court

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Mohave. J. W. Faulkner, Judge. Judgment reversed.

Messrs Struckmeyer & Struckmeyer and Mr. E. Elmo Bollinger, for Appellants.

Mr Louis L. Wallace, of Kingman, Arizona, and Mr. Alfred T Cluff, of Los Angeles, California, for Appellee.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, C.J.

Harry E. Teeter, Vena V. Teeter, John H. Teeter and Myrtle Weidman were killed as the result of a collision between a Ford automobile, in which they were traveling, and a truck driven by one Eddie Pyeatt. Four suits were brought by the proper parties, alleging that each and all of these deaths were caused by the negligence of Pyeatt. J. H. Hall, Raymond Hall Producers Mines, Inc., and Pyeatt were named as defendants. By agreement of counsel, the cases were consolidated and tried as one in the lower court, but separate verdicts and judgments were rendered, and separate appeals were taken. It was agreed, however, that the appeals might be heard on one record. For the purposes of this appeal the deceased in the separate cases will be referred to jointly as plaintiffs.

There is little, if any, conflict in regard to the facts upon which the cases must be determined, and they may be stated as follows: On the morning of May 18, 1939, Eddie Pyeatt, one of the defendants herein, was driving an empty ore truck in an easterly direction upon the public highway from Producers Mines, Inc., in Mohave County, towards Chloride. This road intersected with U.S. Highway No. 93, which runs practically in a northerly and southerly direction. About fifty-five feet west of the center of Highway No. 93 is a stop sign. When the truck was in the intersection of these two highways, the Ford car, in which plaintiffs were traveling, ran head on into the right side of the truck near the driver's cab. As a result of the collision all of the plaintiffs were killed and Pyeatt was seriously injured. It is alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of Pyeatt.

The only eyewitness as to how the collision, which admittedly caused the death of plaintiffs, happened was Pyeatt, and he testified on this point, so far as material to the determination of the appeals, as follows:

"A. Well I pulled up to the stop sign, which is a ways back from the road, stopped and looked in both directions; looked to the right and to the left I think, and there were no cars in sight for, I would say, three quarters of a mile; then shifted into low gear and started across, and when I got about the center of the highway I noticed a car coming several hundred feet and the next thing I knew it was only a few feet from the truck and had hit me. After that I didn't know much about the accident....

"Q. Are you able to state the speed of that car as it came towards you? A. Well I couldn't say exactly, but it was going at a terrific speed, probably as fast as a Ford would go in my estimation....

"Q. As you came down to the highway you had a perfectly clear view for a distance of a half mile back on the Producers road of the highway to the south; that is true isn't it? A. Yes sir....

"Q. When you reached the stop sign, did you stop even with the sign or did you continue up to the edge of the pavement? A. With the cab about even with the sign....

"Q. At that point did you look down the highway? A. Yes....

"Q. Down there where you saw a car approaching, am I right? A. Yes.

"Q. And that car was approaching; and that car was on the highway, heading in a northerly direction toward the intersection? A. I couldn't tell exactly but I thought it was in that direction but you couldn't tell that far....

"Q. You looked after you got almost on the highway? A. Yes sir.

"Q. When you say almost on the highway, where were the front wheels of the truck when you looked again, as near as you can figure? A. At the center line.

"Q. You were on the highway when you looked again; is that a fact? A. Yes sir.

"Q. You had actually gone into the intersection and you were on the highway? A. Yes sir.

"Q. And your front wheels were up to about the center line? A. Right.

"Q. You hadn't looked at the highway to the south in the time when you saw the car about three quarters of a mile away until your front wheels reached the intersection; is that right? A. That is right....

"Q. How -- I wish you would do this; just try to reconstruct in your mind the stopping, and going through the mechanics of getting into gear, and let us know the best you can do? A. Probably a minute.

"Q. So you think the car would have been at a stop a full minute? A. I was in no particular hurry; I probably had plenty of time.

"Q. Anyhow it was quite an appreciable interval the car was standing still right there by the stop sign? A. Yes sir.

"Q. Now from the point where your truck was near the center line of the highway, then you saw this other car again? A. Yes sir.

"Q. How far away was it then? A. I would say it was three or four hundred feet....

"Q. You aren't prepared to give any judgment as to the speed of this approaching car in miles an hour? A. I know it was faster than most of them go."

It is agreed that the verdicts must rest upon proved negligence on the part of Pyeatt which proximately caused or contributed to the deaths of plaintiffs, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply. The only negligence which it is claimed the evidence shows Pyeatt was guilty of was an alleged violation of the first sentence of section 66-112, Arizona Code 1939, which reads:

"Right-of-way exceptions -- Police and fire vehicles. -- When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Neely v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 19, 1978
    ...verdict upon surmise or conjecture. See, e. g., Harmon v. Szrama, 102 Ariz. 303, 429 P.2d 662, 664 (1967) (en banc); Hall v. Wallace, 59 Ariz. 503, 130 P.2d 36, 38 (1942); Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Blake, 53 Ariz. 498, 90 P.2d 1004, 1007 (1939); Butler v. Rule, 33 Ariz. 460, 2......
  • Lundberg v. Bolon
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1948
    ... ... 126, 230 P. 1109, and ... the rule was later set out in Hall v. Wallace, 59 ... Ariz. 503, 509, 130 P.2d 36, 38, as follows: ... ...
  • State v. Bearden
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • September 29, 1965
    ...is against the weight of the evidence. He points out that a jury may not return a verdict based upon surmise or guess, Hall v. Wallace, 59 Ariz. 503, 509, 130 P.2d 36, and argues that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not establish guilt. State v. George, above, 95 Ariz. at p. 368,......
  • Curlee v. Steward
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1963
    ...ahead of the driver on the right, the driver ahead of left may be found to have violated the right of way rules. See Hall v. Wallace, 59 Ariz. 503, 130 P.2d 36 (1942). 8 The principles established by these authorities cannot be extended to the extreme urged by the defendants however, and ap......
  • 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