Hidalgo v. Cochise County, 2

Decision Date08 September 1970
Docket NumberNo. 2,CA-CIV,2
Citation13 Ariz.App. 27,474 P.2d 34
PartiesJohn D. HIDALGO et al., Appellants, v. CHCHISE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic, Appellee. 673.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals

Hillock & Richards, by M. L. Hillock, Tucson, for appellants.

Gentry, McNulty, Toci & Borowiec, by Thos. A. Thode, Bisbee, for appellee.

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs, John D. Hidalgo and Richard B. Fraker, II sued both Cochise County and Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Witt for personal injuries sustained in a two-vehicle collision at an intersection. Defendants Witt and Cochise County consolidated their two cases but before trial plaintiffs settled their claims against the Witts and those proceedings were dismissed. After a jury verdict in favor of Cochise County, judgment was so entered. Plaintiffs' motions for a new trial were denied. Plaintiffs now appeal from the judgment and the denial of their motions for a new trial.

Plaintiffs John D. Hidalgo and Richard Fraker were injured October 3, 1965, near Willcox, Arizona, when a Model A pickup truck in which they were riding was struck by a car driven by one Clifford Witt. The Witt car was southbound on Fort Grant Road. The vehicle driven by Fraker was attempting to cross Fort Grant Road in an easterly direction from a point where a gravel or dirt road intersects with it. Plaintiff, John Hidalgo, was riding in the rear of the vehicle. Plaintiff, Richard Fraker, was driving and his brother, Shaddo Fraker, was riding in the right front seat. The vehicle in which the plaintiffs were riding approached the intersection whereupon Hidalgo stood up in the back of the truck to look for approaching traffic. The driver also looked but saw nothing. The pickup proceeded into the intersection where it was hit by the Witt car. Hidalgo and the driver Richard Fraker sustained injuries. The plaintiffs claim that their vision of the intersection was obscured by Johnson grass gowing in a ditch along the roadway.

An individual consideration of each of plaintiffs' assignments of error is unnecessary because the defendant Cochise County may simply not be held liable. Plaintiffs allege defendant is liable for not maintaining its rights-of-way. The gist of this allegation is that defendant failed to alleviate a defect in the highway by removing the weeds. (The ditch was part of the right-of-way.)

The rule is that in the absence of a statute a highway authority is not liable for personal injuries because it has allowed the view of an intersection to be obscured by high grass, weeds or bushes which have grown up in a portion of the street or along its boundary. Owens v. Town of Booneville, 206 Miss. 345, 40 So.2d 158 (1949); Barton v. King County, 18 Wash.2d 573, 139 P.2d 1019 (1943); Blashfield, Automobile Law and Practice, § 163.13; 39 Am.Jur.2d, Highways, § 462; see also annotation in 42 A.L.R.2d 817.

To rule otherwise would be to hold, literally, that hundreds of county road intersections are inherently dangerous and to impose an imponderable responsibility upon the counties.

As statutory authority, plaintiffs claim the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the defendant violated A.R.S. §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Donaca v. Curry County
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1986
    ... ... See Annot., 42 A.L.R.2d 817 (1955). 2 ...         More recently, some jurisdictions have found liability when vegetation obscures ... 8 Boyle v. City of Phoenix, 115 Ariz. 106, 563 P.2d 905 (1977); Hidalgo v. Cochise County, 13 Ariz.App. 27, 474 P.2d 34 (1970); Bohm v. Racette, 118 Kan. 670, 236 P. 811 ... ...
  • Alaface v. National Inv. Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1994
    ... ... ' consumer fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the Arizona subdivision reporting statutes apply to appellee, but ... Co. v. Cochise County, 26 Ariz.App. 323, 327, 548 P.2d 416, 420 (1976) (referring to ... of the class of persons that the statute was designed to protect, Hidalgo v. Cochise County, 13 Ariz.App. 27, 474 P.2d 34 (1970); (3) the violation ... ...
  • Hall v. Mertz
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • February 4, 1971
    ... ... Mildred MERTZ, a widow, Appellee ... No. 2 CA-CIV 874 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2 ... Feb. 4, 1971 ... Daly, 55 Ariz. 535, 104 P.2d 147 (1940); Hidalgo v. Cochise County, 13 Ariz.App. 27, 474 P.2d 34 (1970); Worthington v ... ...
  • Jezek v. City of Midland
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 1979
    ... ... In answer to Special Issues numbered 1, 2 and 3, the jury found that mesquite and other brush had grown up at the ... 345, 40 So.2d 158; Barton v. King County, Wash.1943 (18 Wash.2d 573) 139 P.2d 1019; Goodaile v. Board of Com'rs of ... City of Phoenix, 115 Ariz. 106, 563 P.2d 905 (1977); Hidalgo v. Cochise County, 13 Ariz.App. 27, 474 P.2d 34 (1970); from New York ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT