Hewitt v. Masters
| Decision Date | 14 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 50307,50307 |
| Parties | Harry Austin HEWITT, a Minor, by His Next Friend and Natural Guardian, Gerald Lester Hewitt, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Edwin C. MASTERS and Bess Masters, Defendants-Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Dalton & Treasure, Kennett, for appellant.
Elvis A. Mooney, Briney & Welborn, Joe Welborn, James E. Spain, Bloomfield, for respondents.
HENRY J. WESTHUES, Special Commissioner.
Plaintiff Harry Austin Hewitt, a minor, by his natural guardian, Gerald Lester Hewitt, filed this suit against Dr. Edwin C. Masters and his wife, Bess Masters, to recover damages in the amount of $150,000 for personal injuries sustained when a car driven by Dr. Masters collided with the rear of a Ford car. A trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants. A motion for new trial was overruled and plaintiff appealed.
(We shall refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendants throughout the opinion.)
On this appeal, plaintiff's sole contention is that instruction No. 4, given by the trial court at defendants' request, was erroneous for the reason that it imposed on plaintiff the exercise of the highest degree of care; further, that the instruction assumed facts which were in dispute.
The record discloses that there was a sharp conflict in the evidence with reference to a number of issues of fact, while many other facts were not in dispute. Those facts not in dispute were: On the afternoon of July 18, 1961, Gerald Lester Hewitt and his son, the plaintiff, left Malden, Missouri, where they lived, in a Dodge truck for the purpose of picking up a Ford car which was stranded near Dutchtown on Highway 25. When they reached the point where the Ford was located, the Ford was hitched to the rear of the truck by a chain which was run through an iron pipe about 5 feet in length. On the return trip toward Malden, the father drove the pickup truck and plaintiff occupied and steered the towed Ford. On the way south on Highway 25, two stops were made to check the hitch, lights, and other parts of the vehicles. The final stop was made at a point about 2 miles north of Aquilla, Missouri, on the south slope of a hill. The purpose of this stop, as testified to by Gerald Lester Hewitt and plaintiff, was that the father wished to advise his son about steering the Ford, particularly about the use of the brakes so as to keep the towed car from jerking when passing over the hills to the south. Mr. Hewitt alighted from his truck and went between the truck and the towed car where he was joined by his son, the plaintiff. While in that position and within 5 minutes after the vehicles were stopped, Dr. Masters' car, coming from the north, struck the rear of the Ford. The impact caused the Ford to strike the truck. Hewitt and his son Harry Austin Hewitt were seriously injured. Each, among other injuries, had his legs broken. Plaintiff's right leg was later amputated. After the wreck, the Ford was partially on the pavement and partially on the west shoulder. Dr. Masters' car was standing in the east lane headed north. The truck was out in a field several hundred feet to the southwest. The defendant Dr. Masters went toward the crest of the hill and flagged down an approaching car. This car went into the ditch on the west side of the road a few feet north of the Ford. All parties agreed that it was raining or misting and that the shoulders of the road were wet.
The disputed issues were: Plaintiff's evidence was that the truck and the towed Ford were stopped on the right shoulder of Highway 25 entirely off the pavement. Defendants' evidence was that the truck and the Ford were stopped in the southbound lane on the pavement.
Plaintiff's evidence was that the five lights on the rear of the truck and two lights on the rear of the Ford were burning. Defendants' evidence was that no lights were burning on the truck or the Ford.
Plaintiff's evidence was that the truck and Ford were stopped more than 300 feet south of the crest of the hill. Defendants' evidence was that the vehicles were stopped not more than 120 feet south of the crest of the hill.
Defendants contended that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Instruction No. 4, of which plaintiff complains, reads as follows: 'The Court instructs the jury that although you may find and believe from the evidence that one or both of the defendants was guilty of negligence as charged by plaintiff, yet, if you further find and believe from the evidence that the plaintiff was also guilty of negligence, in failing to exercise the highest degree of care in the operation of the said Ford car upon the highway, by reason of the fact that plaintiff negligently and carelessly failed to exercise the highest degree of care in stopping and bringing to a standstill said Ford car on the traveled portion of Highway 25 and that plaintiff carelessly and negligently failed to give a reasonable warning of the presence of said motor vehicle on said highway, if you so find, and if you further find and believe from the evidence that said act or acts of negligence, if you find such act(s) or acts to be negligence, directly caused, or contributed to cause, plaintiff's injuries and the collision mentioned in evidence, then the plaintiff cannot recover and your verdict must be for the defendant.'
Plaintiff, in his brief, earnestly insists that he was not an operator of a motor vehicle within the meaning of Sec. 304.010, V.A.M.S. This section provides in part that 'Every person operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state shall drive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McTeer v. Clarkson Const. Co., Inc.
...in question, having been considered by the Missouri appellate courts in a variety of cases, has been broadly construed. Hewitt v. Masters, 386 S.W.2d 9, 12 (Mo.1964). 8 "It is the duty of our courts to reasonably interpret Section 304.010 so that the legislature's purpose in enacting that l......
-
Great Central Insurance Company v. Marble
...vehicle specifically named in the contract is, however, of interest and of some significance. The appellant's third case, Hewitt v. Masters, 386 S.W.2d 9 (Mo.1964), did not involve insurance at all. The ultimate holding was that a father driving a Dodge truck and his son steering a Ford tow......
-
Ensor v. Hodgeson, 41534
...he is held to the "highest degree of care" standard imposed on all motor vehicle operators. § 304.010, RSMo 1978; Hewitt v. Masters, 386 S.W.2d 9 (Mo.1964). Defendant Hodgeson submitted the issue of decedent's contributory negligence by Instruction Number 10 as Your verdict must be for the ......