Harris Motor Lines v. Green, Record No. 3012.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1946 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 3012. |
| Citation | 184 Va. 984 |
| Parties | HARRIS MOTOR LINES, INC., ETC. v. GEORGE R. GREEN. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Hudgins, Gregory, Browning and Spratley, JJ.
1. AUTOMOBILES — Concurring Negligence — Collision with Truck Parked on Highway — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action for damages arising out of a truck collision, plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in his favor, while the cross-claim of defendant was dismissed. Plaintiff's truck was brought to a stop at the scene of the accident by reason of mechanical difficulty approximately five hours prior to the collision; only the right rear wheel was off the hard surface; the truck was not equipped with dimension or marker lights as required by section 2154(141), (g), of the Code of 1942; it was not equipped with flares as required by section 2154(133a); and the driver made no attempt to have the truck removed from the highway in compliance with section 2154(133), (a). Defendant's driver testified that his lights would disclose an object for a distance of 150 feet ahead, that he could have stopped within 150 feet but that he did not see plaintiff's truck until he was 20 or 25 feet away from it and it was too late to avert the collision.
Held: That the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the doctrine of the last clear chance since the evidence disclosed a clear case of concurring negligence and under it neither party should have recovered.
2. NEGLIGENCE — Last Clear Chance — Defenses of Contributory or Concurring Negligence Not Superseded. — The doctrine of the last clear chance was never intended to supersede the defenses of contributory negligence or concurring negligence.
3. NEGLIGENCE — Concurring Negligence — Defeats Recovery. — Where the negligence of both parties continues down to the moment of the accident and contributes to the injury, neither one of them having a chance to prevent the accident, or both of them having a chance but the chance of neither precedes the chance of the other, the chances of both subsisting in equal strength up to the time of the injury, the case is one of concurring negligence and there can be no recovery.
4. AUTOMOBILES — Last Clear Chance — Duty to Show that Plaintiff's Negligence Had Terminated — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action for damages arising out of a truck collision, plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in his favor, while the cross-claim of defendant was dismissed. Plaintiff's truck was brought to a stop at the scene of the accident by reason of mechanical difficulty approximately five hours prior to the collision; only the right rear wheel was off the hard surface; the truck was not equipped with dimension or marker lights as required by section 2154(141), (g), of the Code of 1942; it was not equipped with flares as required by section 2154(133a); and the driver made no attempt to have the truck removed from the highway in compliance with section 2154(133), (a). Defendant's driver testified that his lights would disclose an object for a distance of 150 feet ahead, that he could have stopped within 150 feet but that he did not see plaintiff's truck until he was 20 or 25 feet away from it and it was too late to avert the collision.
Held: That before plaintiff could have the advantage of the last clear chance doctrine it was incumbent upon him to show his driver's negligence had terminated as a cause of the collision prior thereto.
5. AUTOMOBILES — Contributory Negligence — Leaving Truck on Highway without Dimension Lights or Flares — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action for damages arising out of a truck collision, plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in his favor, while the cross-claim of defendant was dismissed. Plaintiff's truck was brought to a stop at the scene of the accident by reason of mechanical difficulty approximately five hours prior to the collision; only the right rear wheel was off the hard surface; the truck was not equipped with dimension or marker lights as required by section 2154(141), (g), of the Code of 1942; it was not equipped with flares as required by section 2154(133a); and the driver made no attempt to have the truck removed from the highway in compliance with section 2154(133), (a). Defendant's driver testified that his lights would disclose an object for a distance of 150 feet ahead, that he could have stopped within 150 feet but that he did not see plaintiff's truck until he was 20 or 25 feet away from it and it was too late to avert the collision.
Held: That the failure to put out flares, the failure to have the rear of the truck properly lighted with dimension lights, and the failure to have it removed from the highway, all in violation of the specific statutes, constituted omissions which continued to exist down to the time of collision, and at no time prior to the collision could any one of those omissions be segregated and isolated from the negligence of the other driver so that it could be said they did not proximately contribute to the accident.
6. NEGLIGENCE — Last Clear Chance — Where Both Parties Guilty of Continuous Negligence. — Where two people are both guilty of continuous acts of negligence down to the time of the accident, the doctrine of the last clear chance does not apply.
7. NEGLIGENCE — Right to Assume that Others Will Obey Law. — A person has the right to assume that everyone else will obey the law and perform his duty and to act upon that belief until the contrary appears.
8. AUTOMOBILES — Negligence — Failure to Anticipate that Truck Would Be Unlawfully Stopped on Highway — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action for damages arising out of a truck collision, plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in his favor, while the cross-claim of defendant was dismissed. Plaintiff's truck was brought to a stop at the scene of the accident by reason of mechanical difficulty approximately five hours prior to the collision; only the right rear wheel was off the hard surface; the truck was not equipped with dimension or marker lights as required by section 2154(141), (g), of the Code of 1942; it was not equipped with flares as required by section 2154(133a); and the driver made no attempt to have the truck removed from the highway in compliance with section 2154(133), (a). Defendant's driver testified that his lights would disclose an object for a distance of 150 feet ahead, that he could have stopped within 150 feet but that he did not see plaintiff's truck until he was 20 or 25 feet away from it and it was too late to avert the collision.
Held: That it could not be imputed to the driver of defendant's truck as negligence that he did not anticipate the gross negligence of the driver of plaintiff's truck.
9. AUTOMOBILES — Last Clear Chance — Where Plaintiff's Truck Was Unlawfully Stopped on Highway — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action for damages arising out of a truck collision, plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment in his favor, while the cross-claim of defendant was dismissed. Plaintiff's truck was brought to a stop at the scene of the accident by reason of mechanical difficulty approximately five hours prior to the collision; only the right rear wheel was off the hard surface; the truck was not equipped with dimension or marker lights as required by section 2154(141), (g), of the Code of 1942; it was not equipped with flares as required by section 2154(133a); and the driver made no attempt to have the truck removed from the highway in compliance with section 2154(133), (a). Defendant's driver testified that his lights would disclose an object for a distance of 150 feet ahead, that he could have stopped within 150 feet but that he did not see plaintiff's truck until he was 20 or 25 feet away from it and it was too late to avert the collision.
Held: That the gross negligence of plaintiff's driver was never superseded or rendered ineffective by any negligence on the part of the other driver.
10. NEGLIGENCE — Last Clear Chance — Doctrine Stated. — Virginia follows the minority rule that even though the negligence of the plaintiff continues to the moment of the injury, this will not relieve the defendant of liability if he knew or ought to have known the peril in which the plaintiff had negligently placed himself and had a clear chance, notwithstanding such negligence, to save him from injury.
Error to a judgment of the Law and Equity Court of the city of Richmond, Part II. Hon. Haskins Hobson, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
A. Scott Anderson and Aubrey R. Bowles, Jr., for the plaintiff in error.
John G. May, Jr., and M. Wallace Moncure, Jr., for the defendant in error.
George R. Green, the owner of a truck which was being operated by his servant, Charles Combs, brought an action at law against Harris Motor Lines, Inc., the owner of a truck which was being operated by its servant, E. M. Mask, for damages to the truck resulting from a collision of the two trucks. Both trucks were damaged and Harris Motor Lines, Inc., filed a cross-claim for damages to its truck. Green prevailed and a verdict and judgment in his favor were obtained. The cross-claim of Harris Motor Lines, Inc., was dismissed and it prosecutes this writ of error.
The facts are without substantial conflict or dispute. The collision occurred on November 3, 1943, on U.S. Highway No. 1, at about four o'clock A.M. The scene of the collision is near the city limits of the city of Richmond and almost opposite Emmanuel Church.
The highway at this point is divided into two lanes of travel by a strip of ground containing a long row of cedar trees, a grass plot and the like. On the west side of this strip of land is the southbound roadway, and on the east side is the northbound roadway.
Green, the owner of one of the trucks, had it equipped with a stake body, and at the time it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial