Hastings v. Ross, 46645

• Decision Date: 07 April 1973
• Docket Number: No. 46645,46645
• Citation: 211 Kan. 732,508 P.2d 514
• Parties: Rodney HASTINGS, Appellant, v. Enoch Elijah ROSS, Appellee, and James A. Hastings, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 514

508 P.2d 514

211 Kan. 732

Rodney HASTINGS, Appellant, v. Enoch Elijah ROSS, Appellee, and James A. Hastings, Appellant.

No. 46645.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

April 7, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

The record is examined in an action to recover damages to a motor vehicle resulting from a collision of two cars at a city intersection and for reasons appearing in the opinion it is held (1) the findings and judgment of the trial court are supported by substantial competent evidence, and (2) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence as part of the res gestae.

Morris D. Hildreth, Coffeyville, on the brief, for appellant, Rodney Hastings.

John B. Markham, Parsons, on the brief, for appellant, James A. Hastings.

Aubrey Neale, and Ray A. Neale, Coffeyville, on the brief, for appellee.

FONTRON, Justice:

On November 28, 1969, an accident occurred at an intersection in Coffeyville, Kansas. Two cars were involved. One car was driven by James A. Hastings. It was proceeding west on Fourth, a one-way protected street. This car belonged to James' father. The second automobile was operated by Enoch Elijah Ross, a minister and music teacher, who was in Coffeyville to attend a revival meeting. His car was proceeding north on Walnut, an unprotected street. His wife was a passenger in his car. Both cars were wrecked.

James' father, Rodney Hastings, sued to recover damages to his car. The Reverend Mr. Ross counterclaimed for the damage done to his vehicle and made James a third-party defendant. The case was tried to the court on evidence introduced in the prior trial of Mrs. Ross against James, as supplemented by additional stipulations. The trial court exonerated Ross of any negligence contributing to the accident but found that James was guilty of negligence which was the sole proximate cause of the collision. Ross was awarded judgment in the amount of $2260. James and his father have appealed. We shall hereafter refer to the parties by name or as appellants and appellee.

Basically, two points are raised on appeal. The first point goes to the sufficiency of the evidence. On the one hand the appellants contend the evidence was insufficient to establish negligence on the part of James, while on the other hand they maintain that the evidence shows Ross was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In our opinion neither of these contentions can be sustained when the evidence is scrutinized in the light of our ancient rule that findings of the trial court will not be set aside where they are supported by substantial competent evidence. (1 Hatcher's Kansas Digest (Rev.Ed.) Appeal & Error, § 507.)

According to the testimony of Mr. Ross, which was corroborated in large part, he stopped at the stop sign located twenty-four feet from the south curb line of Fourth Street. He looked to his right and saw the Hastings vehicle a little more than a block away. The block was stipulated to be 450 feet long. He then glanced to his left before pulling across. He quickly glanced again toward the right. The Hastings car was about a block away, as he remembered it. He figured it was traveling at the speed limit, 30 miles per hour. He proceeded into the intersection. On reaching the northeast quadrant of the intersection his car was struck by the Hastings car. He had no idea the car would get there that quick. The impact shoved his car against a tree and a fireplug on the opposite corner of the intersection.

Estimates of the speed at which James was driving were given by two disinterested witnesses who lived on Fourth Street approximately 200 feet from the accident. One of the witnesses, Mrs. Morris, testified he was going at least 50 miles per hour. Her husband said 40 or 50. Mr....