Hammonds v. Mansfield
| Decision Date | 22 April 1955 |
| Citation | 41 Tenn.App. 515,296 S.W.2d 652 |
| Parties | W. N. (Naul) HAMMONDS, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. Helen MANSFIELD, Defendant-in-Error. W. N. (Naul) HAMMONDS, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. Walter W. MANSFIELD, Defendant-in-Error. Walter W. MANSFIELD, administrator of the Estate of Eva May Mansfield, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. W. N. (Naul) HAMMONDS, Defendant-in-Error. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
J. Paul White, Union City, for Walter W. Mansfield and others.
Fenner Heathcock, Tom Elam, Union City, for W. N. Hammonds.
These three cases which were tried together come from the Circuit Court of Obion County, Tennessee, and arose out of an accident which occurred at the Lindenwood School in Obion County on Hallowe'en night, October 31, 1952.
Lindenwood School is located about three miles north of Union City, Tennessee, on a county gravel road which runs east and west. The schoolhouse faces north and the steps of the school are about 123 feet south of the county gravel road. There is a gravel driveway which runs in a southwestern direction from the county gravel road down to the schoolhouse steps making a circle in front of the steps.
The driveway slopes to the schoolhouse steps and is from 10 to 14 feet wide. The schoolhouse steps are located 7 feet south of the driveway--this 7-foot space is gravelled for a walkway but not usually travelled by cars.
The schoolhouse has a concrete porch 9 feet 9 3/4 inches wide north and south and 20 feet 4 inches long east and west. Leading up to the schoolhouse porch from the driveway are four steps 10 feet wide. The first step is from 3 to 5 inches high, the second step is 6 1/4 inches high, the third step is 6 1/4 inches high, and the fourth step is 6 1/4 inches high.
There was a community Hallowe'en party being held at the schoolhouse on the night in question and the defendant, W. N. (Naul) Hammonds and his wife, Mrs. Hammonds, drove to the schoolhouse in their automobile to attend the party. There were a number of cars parked along the driveway. Mr. Hammonds came slowly down the driveway toward the steps where he intended to let his wife out of the car and his purpose was then to drive on around the circle and park at some convenient place without blocking the entrance to the steps.
As the Hammonds car approached the schoolhouse steps driving slowly in a southwesterly direction the plaintiffs, Walter W. Mansfield, his wife Mrs. Helen Mansfield and his mother Mrs. Eva May Mansfield, were in the act of working up the schoolhouse steps. They were on the second or third step when the Hammonds automobile drove into or against the steps striking and injuring Mrs. Helen Mansfield and her mother-in-law, Mrs. Eva May Mansfield from behind.
Mrs. Eva May Mansfield sustained a broken leg and Mrs. Helen Mansfield's left leg was completely crushed and her injuries were of a much more serious nature than those sustained by Mrs. Eva May Mansfield.
The Mansfields did not see the Hammonds car but Hammonds, immediately before running into the steps, did yell or holler for them to watch out or look out but not in time to prevent the accident.
Damage suits were filed by the wife, Mrs. Helen Mansfield, and by her husband, Walter W. Mansfield individually and a third suit by Walter W. Mansfield as the administrator of his mother, Mrs. Eva May Mansfield who had died on May 11, 1953 following the accident on October 1952.
The declarations were in three counts. The First Count alleged that Mr. Hammonds was guilty of common-law negligence.
The Second Count alleged violation of Code Sections 2681 and 2682 as follows:
* * *
'(c) Reckless driving within the meaning of this section shall be deemed to include the following offenses, which are expressively prohibited:
'First: Driving a vehicle when not under complete control, or with inadequate or improperly adjusted brakes. * * *
'Sixth: Exceeding a reasonable speed under the circumstances and traffic conditions abtaining at the time. * * *
The Third Count alleged a violation of Code Section 2695 as follows:
'2695. Lights; brakes; emergency parts.--B(a) Brakes. Brake equipment required.
'1. Every motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold such vehicle, including two (2) separate means of applying the brakes, each of which means shall be effective to apply the brakes to at least two (2) wheels.
If these two (2) separate means of applying brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that failure of any one part of the operating mechanism shall not leave the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two (2) wheels. * * *
'(b) Performance ability of brakes.
'1. The service brakes upon any motor vehicle or combination of vehicle shall be adequate to stop such vehicle or vehicles when travelling twenty (20) miles per hour within a distance of thirty (30) feet when upon dry asphalt or concrete pavement surface free from loose material where the grade does not exceed 1 per cent.
'2. Under the above conditions the hand brake shall be adequate to stop such vehicle or vehicles within a distance of fifty-five (55) feet and said hand brake shall be adequate to hold such vehicle or vehicles stationary on any grade upon which operated.
The defendant pleaded the general issue; contributory negligence; and that the accident was unavoidable insofar as the defendant Hammonds was concerned.
The defendant's main defense was that his car was equipped with hydraulic brakes and that a particle of grit or sand became lodged in the master cylinder causing the brakes to completely fail at the time of the accident. He further contended that he had no prior knowledge that the brakes were defective and that he had no reason to anticipate that the grit would become lodged in the cylinder causing the brakes to fail and that it was impossible for him to have prevented such from occurring and that the accident was truly unavoidable on his part.
The jury awarded a verdict of $17,000 in favor of the plaintiff, Helen Mansfield, for personal injuries and a verdict of $3,000 in favor of the plaintiff, Walter W. Mansfield, who was not injured in the collision and who sued for loss of services, hospital and doctor bills.
The jury returned a verdict of only $500 in favor of the plaintiff, Walter W. Mansfield, administrator of his mother's estate.
The defendant, Hammonds, has appealed in error from the judgments of $17,000 and $3,000 in favor of the wife and husband respectively and the plaintiff, Walter W. Mansfield, has appealed from the judgment of $3,000 in his favor and the plaintiff, Walter W. Mansfield, administrator of the estate of Mrs. Eva May Mansfield, has appealed from the $500 judgment on the grounds of inadequacy.
We consider first the appeal of the defendant, Hammonds, from the $17,000 judgment and the $3,000 judgment.
Assignments of Error I through IV insist that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury and that the Trial Judge was in error in failing to grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict in both cases.
When we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs below, these salient facts stand out: The front of the schoolhouse was lighted; there was at least one person besides the plaintiffs on the steps or the porch at the time the defendant drove into the school yard; cars were parked on the outside of the driveway but the opening between the front steps and the driveway was clear; the defendant drove slowly down the driveway and instead of staying within the circular driveway, drove his car seven feet off the driveway straight into the steps, injuring the plaintiffs.
Further, it appears that even though he was driving extremely slow and there was nothing to obscure his view of the plaintiffs, when he found that his brakes had completely failed the defendant made no effort to use the hand brake, he made no effort to pump the hydraulic brakes and made no effort to pull or swerve either to the right or left, he kept his foot on the clutch which was pushed in and let the car coast on straight into the steps and struck the plaintiffs with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hammond
...ground. All three judgments were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. See Hammonds v. Mansfield, Tenn.App., 296 S.W.2d 652. The Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company paid the judgment of $500 in favor of the administrator of Mrs. Eva Mae Man......
-
Kohler v. Sheffert
...v. James, 212 Or. 375, 319 P.2d 879, 882 et seq.; Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co., 241 Minn. 79, 62 N.W.2d 492; Hammonds v. Mansfield, Tenn.App., 296 S.W.2d 652; Hassell v. Colletti, La.App., 12 So.2d 31; Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 148 A.2d 334, 338, Both briefs cited Amelsburg v. Lu......
-
Wheeler v. Cain
...Honor the Trial Judge and the plaintiffs' assignments of error, I, II, III, and IV are respectfully overruled. Hammonds v. Mansfield, 41 Tenn.App. 515, 296 S.W.2d 652 (1955). All assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the lower Court is in all things affirmed and the de......
-
Mid-South Engineering Co. v. Buchanan
...Company, together with interest at 6% From September 15, 1966, the date the motion for new trial was overruled. Hammonds v. Mansfield, 41 Tenn.App. 515, 296 S.W.2d 652. If the remittitur is refused, the cause will be reversed for a new trial. The defendant is taxed with the costs in the cou......