Hammon v. Gentemann, 32638
| Decision Date | 21 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 32638,32638 |
| Citation | 423 S.W.2d 5 |
| Parties | Mary HAMMON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harry E. GENTEMANN, by Mary Gentemann, Guardian ad Litem, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lusser, Hughes & Lusser, Alfred J. Rathert, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Marshall & Littmann, Richard A. Littmann, Murphy & Kortenhof, Joseph M. Kortenhof, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
The plaintiff brought this suit for damages arising out of personal injuries. The injuries were occasioned by the defendant's automobile colliding with an automobile the plaintiff was driving. The defendant filed a counterclaim. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $4,000 and the defendant prosecutes this appeal.
Plaintiff's case was submitted on both primary and humanitarian negligence. It is the contention of the defendant that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. He first asserts that no case of primary negligence was made because the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. He next asserts that no case was made on the humanitarian theory in that there was no evidence upon which the jury could find that the defendant had timely notice of plaintiff's peril. He concludes with the assertion that since no case was made on either primary or humanitarian negligence the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and a judgment entered for the defendant.
The accident occurred on Gravois Avenue in the City of St. Louis on March 3, 1964. In the general area where it occurred Gravois Avenue runs in a north and south direction. It is sixty feet wide and has three traffic lanes on both sides of its center line. Allemania Avenue, which is twenty feet wide, runs east and west and terminates at the east line of Gravois. On the west side of Gravois is 'McDonald's Hamburger' place. It has two entrances from Gravois and the south entrance is about directly opposite Allemania Avenue. It is where Allemania would continue westwardly if it did not end on the east side of Gravois. Gravois has a blacktop surface and its traffic lanes are marked.
The plaintiff, Mary Hammon, was returning home from an evening visit at her daughter's. She was driving her own automobile which was a 1963 Rambler in good condition. With her was a Mrs. Marquardt. They were friends and widows who lived together. They were going north on Gravois and intended to stop at McDonald's for hamburgers. Plaintiff was traveling in the lane nearest the center line when she was a block south of Allemania but a car ahead of her stopped to make a left turn and she went to the right of it. As she did this she put on her right turn signal and when she passed the car she again went to the lane nearest the center line of Gravois so that she could make a left turn into the south driveway of McDonald's. There were no northward bound cars ahead of her or to her right. She turned on her left turn signal as she approached the place of her intended left turn.
One can see several blocks to the north on Gravois Avenue from the point where plaintiff went into her left turn. She did not see the defendant's car. The only car that she saw southbound toward the intersection was in the lane nearest the center line and had its left turn light flashing for a turn into Allemania. She was traveling at a speed which she estimated to be variously from ten to fifteen miles per hour and from thirteen to fifteen miles per hour as she turned toward the south entrance to McDonald's lot. When the front end of her car had crossed to a point where it was into the curb lane and about to enter the McDonald driveway it was struck by the car of the defendant which was traveling south on Gravois. Plaintiff did not see defendant's car until it struck hers.
The southbound car signaling for a turn into Allemania that plaintiff saw as she approached the point of her left turn was driven by a Mr. McKeever. He testified that he noticed the left turn blinker on plaintiff's car when she was one hundred fifty to two hundred feet south of him. Except for his own car he saw no southbound traffic. He made his left turn at about the same time plaintiff was making her left turn. To his right he saw the defendant's car for the first time just as it struck plaintiff's car.
The defendant was a seventeen year old youth who was driving his mother's Chevrolet. He had been to a basketball game with a girl from his neighborhood. She was a passenger in his car and they were going to meet some friends at 'Chuck-A-Burger.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ragland Mills, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.
...any pleaded theory, this judgment must be reversed. Holmes v. McNeil, 356 Mo. 763, 767, 203 S.W.2d 665, 668 (1947); Hammon v. Gentemann, 423 S.W.2d 5, 7 (Mo.App.1967); Bowers v. Columbia Terminals Co., 213 S.W.2d 663, 667 (Mo.App.1948). This is true because the verdict was directed at the c......
-
Bates v. Hensley
...whether a proper lookout has been maintained is usually a jury question. Slaughter v. Myers, 335 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. 1960); Hammon v. Gentlemann, 423 S.W.2d 5 (Mo.App.1967). Apparently, the trial court based its conclusion on the premise that one is held negligent if he failed to see that which ......
-
Gill Const., Inc. v. 18TH & Vine Authority
...5 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). A verdict may not be directed for defendant if plaintiff has made a case on any theory pleaded. Hammon v. Gentemann, 423 S.W.2d 5, 7 (Mo.App.1967). In the instant case, Gill made a submissible breach of contract claim. Because the burden of proof was on the Authority, ......
-
Clark v. McCloskey
...any certain place or time depends upon the then existing circumstances and conditions and is usually a jury question. Hammon v. Gentemann, 423 S.W.2d 5, 7(2) (Mo.App.1967). Moreover, as said in Albert H. Hoppe, Inc. v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 227 S.W.2d 499, 502(3, 4) (Mo.App.1950), a......