Hansen v. Clyde
Decision Date | 25 April 1936 |
Docket Number | 5659 |
Citation | 89 Utah 31,56 P.2d 1366 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | HANSEN v. CLYDE et al |
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; Oscar W. McConkie, Judge.
Action by Virgil Hansen against W. W. Clyde and others, copartners doing business under the firm name of W. W. Clyde & Co. A demurrer to the amended complaint was sustained, and plaintiff appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Irvine Skeen & Thurman, of Salt Lake City, for appellant.
A. E Moreton, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
This action was instituted by plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while riding as a guest passenger in an automobile operated by a party not named in the complaint. The automobile which struck the automobile in which plaintiff was riding was operated by one Fred Bosone. Bosone is not a party to the proceeding. The alleged accident occurred on the highway between Lehi and American Fork in Utah county. The complaint charges that W. W. Clyde, Edward Clyde, Harry S. Clyde, and C. W. Mendenhall were copartners engaged in road construction work under the firm name of W. W. Clyde & Co. Summons was served on Harry S. Clyde.
It is alleged that on August 16, 1933, the state road commission of Utah entered into a written contract with the defendants for the construction of a new road or cut-off between Lehi and American Fork. The points of departure from and reuniting of the new road with the old are described by measurement references. The cut-off consists essentially of two curves forming a sort of letter "S." The point of departure on that part of the highway nearer to Lehi and as approached from the northwest is initiated by a right-hand curve, alleged to be a six-degree curve; that the defendants in pursuance of the contract were engaged in the construction of the new road or cut-off. The following are the allegations of the complaint, the sufficiency of which was attacked by general and special demurrer:
The other allegations of the complaint are not drawn into the controversy. They relate to damages.
The general demurrer to the complaint as finally amended was sustained and in due course the case was dismissed. The appeal is on the judgment roll. The only question raised by the appeal and assignment of error is: Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants? We think the complaint insufficient and that the trial court's decision thereon was correct.
Under the allegations made, could Fred Bosone, if he were free from negligence, recover against the defendants? We think he could not. It is alleged that Fred Bosone was traveling at a speed of approximately 35 miles an hour along the state highway, coming from the northwest; that as he approached the point of departure of the new road, "seeing no warning sign, barricade or other warning device," he turned his automobile to the right and entered upon the new road. No reason is assigned why Bosone should leave the established and recognized highway that lay open straight before him. This may not be important. Whatever the reason, none is alleged except such as may be gleaned from the general allegations to justify a traveler in departing from the straight course before him. He probably had a right to do so. Presumably for the purpose of inferring inducement, it is alleged that defendants "failed to close the northwest end of the new road," and that the new road "had the appearance of a highway open for travel"; that the "northwest end * * * for a distance of approximately 150 feet * * * had the appearance of a highway open for public travel." It is not alleged that the new road is a public highway or that it was open to the public for travel. The allegations compel the inference that it was not, but was in the course of construction, under an uncompleted contract with the state road commission, and that the new construction or cut-off road had not been accepted.
Plaintiff alleges that the contract between the defendants and the state road commission provided that, until the new road was accepted by the state road commission, the new road should be under the care and charge of defendants, that under the contract defendants should maintain a warning sign for the safety of the public at the beginning and at the end of the new road, and that it was defendants' duty to maintain at each end of the new road a warning sign for the protection of travelers.
Under the contract, the duty to maintain warning signs was a matter between the state road commission and the contractors. It is not alleged at what particular point in feet the contract required the warning sign to be placed. It is alleged "at the beginning and at the end." Whether or not there was a breach of the contract by the placing of a warning sign 150 feet from the end of the new road is one thing, and whether it is negligence is quite another. That the state road commission had by the terms of the contract required the erection of warning signs neither helps nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pittman v. Sather, 7380
... ... v. Confer, 154 Cal ... 402, 97 P. 881; Folkins v ... [188 P.2d 606] ... Johnston, 124 Cal.App. 169, 12 P.2d 153; Hansen ... v. Clyde, 89 Utah 31, 56 P.2d 1366, 104 A.L.R. 943; ... Davis v. Mellen, 55 Utah 9, 182 P. 920, 7 A.L.R ... 1193; Law v. Bryant Asphaltic ... ...
-
Young v. Price
...of its existence or to protect them against injury. McManus v. New Jersey Water Co., 22 N.J.Super. 253, 91 A.2d 868; Hansen v. Clyde, 89 Utah 31, 56 P.2d 1366; and see cases in Annots., 104 A.L.R. 943 and 7 A.L.R. 1203. As least one case, brought to our attention, seems to hold that the pla......
-
Shuptrine v. Herron
... ... the traveling public of the presence of the hazard. This is a ... duty running to the public regardless of the contract ... Hansen ... v. Clyde, 56 P.2d 1366, 104 A.L.R. 943 ... James ... McClure, of Sardis, for appellee ... The ... evidence establishes ... ...
-
Stanich v. Western Union Tel. Co.
... ... Racine, 208 ... N.W. 244, 189 Wis. 541; Nielsen v ... Christensen-Gardner, 38 P.2d 743; Wolfe Const. Co ... v. Ellison, 174 So. 594; Hansen v. Clyde, 56 ... P.2d 1366; Carlson v. New York, 134 N.Y.S. 661; ... Cora v. Borough of Kingston, 150 A. 384; Tagge ... v. Roslyn, 98 P. 668; ... ...