Hoskins v. Albuquerque Bus Co., 6949

Citation72 N.M. 217,382 P.2d 700,1963 NMSC 29
Decision Date12 February 1963
Docket NumberNo. 6949,6949
PartiesMary Thelma HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALBUQUERQUE BUS COMPANY, Incorporated, and John Doe, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

Sutin & Jones, Albuquerque, for appellants.

McAtee, Toulouse, Marchiondo, Ruud & Gallagher, Albuquerque, for appellee.

CHAVEZ, Justice.

Defendants-appellants, Albuquerque Bus Company, Incorporated, and John Doe, appeal from a judgment for plaintiff-appellee, Mary Thelma Hoskins, in the amount of $2500 for personal injury.

Appellee was a passenger for hire of appellants on July 1, 1959. She was seated in the center of the bus about one seat from the center or rear door. Because she was late for work, she wanted to be the first one out at her stop. As the bus approached her stop, she left her seat and walked toward the rear door while the bus was till in motion. She descended to the last step in the stairwell, putting her right hand lightly on the door and keeping her left hand at her side. The bus stopped. Simultaneously, the door opened. The bus jerked and she was thrown from the bus to the ground.

Appellants attack the trial court's finding of fact number III, saying:

'I. Finding of fact No. III of the trial court that the conduct of the bus driver therein described was negligent is not supported by substantial evidence.

'(a) Did the driver bring the bus to a sudden stop with a jerk and simultaneously open rear door?'

The trial court's finding of fact number III reads:

'III. That the plaintiff arise [sic] from her seat, and was standing in front of the rear door of the bus, waiting to disembark, when the bus driver brought the bus to a sudden stop with a jerk, and simultaneously opening the rear door, resulting in the plaintiff being pitched out of the bus.'

Appellants would inject into this finding a determination by the trial court that the driver was negligent. As the finding attacked does not include such a determination, this aspect cannot be considered.

The only evidence relevant to this issue was presented by appellee. Appellants argue that because there was an apparent conflict in the testimony given by the two eyewitnesses testifying, that the finding is not supported by substantial evidence. A question of substantial evidence may not be so resolved. Merely because a conflict exists is not sufficient cause for us to hold that a resolution of the conflict by the trial court is not founded adequately so as to be grounds for reversal. Coseboom v. Marshall Trust, 67 N.M. 405, 356 P.2d 117. The trial court had the opportunity to listen to the evidence and to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. From this participation in the trial, the trier of facts is best able to resolve any conflict which may arise. Simply because this court may feel that it may have reached an opposite conclusion under the same circumstances will not permit us to reverse the trial court's decision. Coseboom v. Marshall Trust, supra; Jontz v. Alderete, 64 N.M. 163, 326 P.2d 95.

We briefly review the evidence. Appellee testified as follows:

'Q. What happened?

'A. When the bus was supposed to have stopped at Central and Girard, I was supposed to be the first off and I was on the last step.

'Q. Was the bus stopped?

'A. The bus was supposed to have stopped.

'Q. You are not making yourself clear. Where did the bus come to a stop? Did it come to a stop?

'A. I don't know. I can't hardly explain how it happened. It is supposed to have stopped but the door opened and the bus kind of made a jerk, something like that.

'Q. And what happened to you?

'A. I went out on the sidewalk.

'Q. Now, Thelma, did you get up from your seat when the bus was still moving?

'A. Yes, it wasn't, you know, it was coming to a stop supposedly.

'Q. And then you went back to the middle--rear door?

'A. Yes.

'Q. Did the bus come to a complete stop there before the jerk or how?

'A. Well, that is what it is supposed to do. I was in the entry and the man opened the door and I guess with the pressure or whatever happened, it jerked like that and out the door I went. I had my hand--Usually they open the door for me when they are off the curb so many feets I guess, but I went out on the sidewalk.

'Q. You were standing in what they call the step down?

'A. Yes.

'Q. And the door opened?

'A. Yes, he opened it.

'Q. After that, suddenly the bus gave a sudden jerk?

'A. Yes.

'Q. Did the bus move forward, backward, or what?

'A. I don't know which way--Just like that. You know. Just jerked is the best I can explain it.

'Q. In other words the bus itself moved after the door opened?

'A. Yes.' On cross-examination, appellee testified:

'Q. Now the bus did come to a complete stop first, at Girard and Central, did it not?

'A. Something on that order (indicating). I was explaining to the best of my mind.

'Q. I would like for you to state whether or not, at the time the bus did or did not come to a complete stop?

'A. Not completely, I don't think.

'Q. Can you answer that yes or no?

'A. Well, I mean, I can't explain it. I don't know whether it would be yes or no.'

On redirect examination, with reference to her statements made at the time her deposition was taken on February 13, 1960, appellee was asked:

'Q. Why didn't you hold on to the rail?

'A. I was down in the last step and I knew the bus had come to a complete stop. The bus had come to a complete stop. You know how they just stop and they open the door and let you out and that's what this bus man had come to a stop and he was two foot from the curb. I don't know, I couldn't imagine--I know from the point my feet was sticking out, some point of the curb and people had to step over and by me standing in the last I had my hand on the door--see, the bus when I was getting up, going along holding the rail, and the rail down until I got to the last step and then see, the bus had stopped for, you know, to let us out, and then he stopped to open the door. I was down in the last step and I had my hand up there waiting to be the first one to get out and he opened the door at the same time and I don't know whether he was fixing to take off. I just don't understand it.

'Q. That was the complete answer to that question, wasn't it Thelma?

'A. Yes.

'Q. The bus came to a complete stop. You had your right hand up on the door?

'A. Yes.

'Q. Then what happened?

'A. Then he opened the door like he was going to take off or something, I don't know what happened.

'Q. I want to get it step by step. You were standing on the last step of the bus?

'A. Yes.

'Q. You had your right hand up on the door?

'A. Yes.

'Q. The bus stopped?

'A. Yes.

'Q. The doors opened?

'A. Yes.

'Q. The doors had opened and then there was a jerk and then you fell forward out of the bus?

'A. Threw me because they jerked like that and I didn't have anything to catch on to but the ground. If I could----

'Q. Had you taken a step from the bottom step to the ground?

'A. No. I am sure that I just--I just couldn't tell. I am sure I was fixing--it was so quick and done so quick until I just couldn't----

'Q. Were you just starting to take a step when you were jerked out of the bus?

'A. To the best of my knowledge. I was getting off.

'Q. Would you say you stepped out of the bus or was thrown?

'A. I was thrown out.'

Dr. Myron Gordon Rosenbaum testified that he examined appellee on July 2, 1959, and that appellee told him that the bus stopped to let her out, the door opened, the bus jerked, she was thrown to the curb and fell on her hands and knees trying to protect her face.

Luther Smith, Jr., called as a witness on behalf of appellee, testified in part as follows:

'Q. Just tell us just what happened.

'A. There was a lady on the bus. She got up. She walked back to the door and she was standing and she had hold of the bus bars there and the bus pulled up and it stopped all of a sudden and with a jerk. The door was opened all at the same time and to my knowledge I don't know whether she step out of the bus or what but she just went straight down out of the bus on her face and the bus driver he just closed the door and pulled off and went on up the street. I thought maybe----

* * *

* * *

'Q. Can you tell the court how long the bus stopped?

'A. It wasn't over a second or two, I just said.

'Q. Was there anything unusual about the manner of stopping?

'A. Yes.

'Q. What was that, Mr. Smith?

'A. I don't know. It just had a big hard jerk to it and a hard stop. The door come open, the lady fell out of the bus and the bus driver closed the door and pulled off.'

On cross-examination, Mr. Smith testified:

'Q. You also say the bus was still shaking and rocking as she stepped off the bus.

* * *

* * *

'A. I say the lady made a step and she fell on her face. That is correct.'

On redirect, Mr. Smith testified 'Q. Now, is your recollection now, when that bus stopped, did it rock back and forth or did it not?

'A. The way that bus would jerk and rock, it was rocking all kind of ways as far as I am concerned.'

We hold that there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding of fact number III.

Appellants' point II is without merit. It asserts that finding of fact number III, even if supported by substantial evidence, does not support the finding and conclusion of law that the bus driver was negligent. Appellants contend under this point that when a bus driver brings a bus to a sudden stop with a jerk, it does not constitute negligence of the bus driver. Appellants argue that there is no breach of duty in this case only by reason of 'a kind of jerk,' 'a sudden jerk,' 'a jerk,' 'a big hard jerk,' or 'a hard stop.' Appellants say that adjectival descriptions of the nature of the sudden start or stop cannot be found legally to constitute negligence unless some definite factual incident occurs as a result thereof, which is abnormal and extraordinary and which deviates from the normal operation.

The trial court found that appellee was a passenger on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Tsosie v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 1 Mayo 1967
    ...there is substantial evidence to support such a finding. Hopkins v. Martinez, 73 N.M. 275, 387 P.2d 852 (1964); Hoskins v. Albuquerque Bus Co., 72 N.M. 217, 382 P.2d 700 (1963). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the trial court's finding, or a jury ver......
  • Galvan v. Miller
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 26 Agosto 1968
    ...N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Pelletier, 76 N.M. 555, 417 P.2d 46 (1966); Hoskins v. Albuquerque Bus Company, 72 N.M. 217, 382 P.2d 700 (1963); Christmas v. Cowden, 44 N.M. 517, 105 P.2d 484 (1940); Fraser v. State Savings Bank, 18 N.M. 340, 137 P. 592 (19......
  • Ledbetter v. Webb
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 9 Diciembre 1985
    ...their want of precision and the occasional intermixture of matters of fact and conclusions of law." Hoskins v. Albuquerque Bus Company, 72 N.M. 217, 224, 382 P.2d 700, 705 (1963) (quoting Fraser v. Bank, 18 N.M. 340, 351, 137 P. 592, 594 (1913) The finding of intentional fraudulent misrepre......
  • Stienbaugh v. Payless Drug Store, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 1965
    ...specific finding of fact is regarded as a finding against the party having the burden of establishing such fact. Hoskins v. Albuquerque Bus Company, 72 N.M. 217, 382 P.2d 700; Griego v. Hogan, 71 N.M. 280, 377 P.2d 953. We must assume, therefore, that the court in concluding that the appell......
  • 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