Huffman v. Gray
Decision Date | 02 July 1949 |
Parties | HUFFMAN v. GRAY. |
Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court December 12, 1949.
Action by Geneva Huffman against Daniel Gray for personal injuries sustained in motor vehicle collision. The Circuit Court Moore County, R. S. Smartt, J., entered judgment for plaintiff for $4,500, and the defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Howell, J., held that jury finding that the defendant was guilty of wanton negligence was sustained by the evidence, and that the verdict was not excessive and affirmed the judgment.
Roberts & Roberts, Nashville, for plaintiff in error.
Lawson H. Myers, Fayetteville, Harold Hayes, Lynchburg, for defendant in error.
This suit resulted from an automobile accident which happened on August 28, 1947, in Huntsville, Alabama. The plaintiff was a guest in the automobile of the defendant, who was driving the car at the time and they were out riding on a pleasure trip.
The declaration alleged that when they reached the intersection of Meridian and Green Streets in Huntsville, the defendant wilfully, wrongfully, negligently and wantonly drove his automobile across Meridian Street and directly into the path of an oncoming car driven by a city Policeman of Huntsville and that the said Policeman had the right of way on Meridian Street and the defendant without looking or paying any attention to his driving attempted to make a left turn into Green Street. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was sitting on the right hand side of the driver's seat of defendant's car and the police car struck the right front door of defendant's car against which plaintiff was leaning, causing her head to crash into the windshield cutting a gash in her throat eight inches long, cutting another gash on the left side of her forehead three inches long, another three inch gash in her left arm, all requiring stitches and causing permanent scars on her face and neck. It is further alleged that plaintiff is twenty-three years of age and by reason of the injuries sustained is permanently disfigured, marked and scarred.
The declaration further alleged that the suit accrued under Section 95, Title 36 of the 1940 Code of Alabama, hereinafter set out and alleged that the defendant was guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct in the operation of the automobile and that such operation of the automobile and such misconduct was responsible for her injuries. The defendant filed a plea of not guilty.
Upon the trial before the Court and jury there was a verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff for $5,000 which, upon the motion for a new trial, was reduced by the trial Judge to $4,500. The remittitur was accepted by the plaintiff under protest.
By proper procedure the defendant has perfected an appeal in error to this Court and has assigned errors. The assignments of error raise the questions that there is no evidence to support the verdict, that the Court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and that the verdict as reduced is excessive.
No errors based upon the charge of the Court are assigned, and therefore the questions before this Court are: Is there any evidence to support the verdict and is it excessive.
The Alabama Statute referred to is as follows: 'Liable only for willful or wanton misconduct.--The owner, operator or person responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or death of a guest while being transported without payment therefor in or upon said motor vehicle, resulting from the operation thereof, unless such injuries or death are caused by the willful or wanton misconduct of such operator, owner or person responsible for the operation of said motor vehicle.'
It was not contended that the defendant was guilty of wilful misconduct, but it is insisted that the accident was the result of the wanton misconduct of the defendant.
The charge of the Court as to wanton misconduct is not excepted to and is in part as follows:
The record discloses that the defendant was driving his car, the plaintiff being on the seat with him, sitting with her back to the right front door of the car and facing the defendant, and was proceeding South along the right hand lane of traffic on Meridian Street in Huntsville. The street was straight and there was nothing to keep him from seeing the police car approaching from the opposite direction and he, without any warning signal of any kind, suddenly turned out of his lane of traffic and into the left hand side of the street when his car was truck by the police car.
The testimony of the plaintiff in part was:
* * *
* * *
'Q. I will ask you whether or not Mr. Gray gave any signal at all that he was going to turn off of Meridian Street on that side? A. No, sir, he didn't give a signal at all.
'Q. As a matter of fact, was he paying any attention to his driving? A. No, sir.
'Mr. Roberts: I Except To That.
'The Court: Yes.
'By Mr. Myers:
'Q. Did you observe whether or not he was looking in the way this policeman was coming? A. No, he wasn't. He was watching me.
'Q. Watching you? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Which was proper.
'Mr. Roberts: I think his conduct is excusable, under those circumstances, and that question is immaterial and irrelevant.
'Mr. Myers: I think it is very proper.
'Q. When he made that turn you are talking about, you said he made no signal. Did he or not, in making his turn, turn directly in the path of this policeman as he came north? A. He turned right in front of him.
'Q. The policeman was traveling which way, was he traveling in an opposite direction from Mr. Gray? A. He was coming facing--hit us on the right hand side when he turned.
'Q. What I am getting at, the policeman, was he coming towards Fayetteville, north? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Mr. Gray was traveling towards Huntsville before he made the turn? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He was traveling south? A. Yes. Sir.
'The Court: The policeman was on Meridian.
'Mr. Myers: Yes.
* * *
* * *
A policeman who was driving the police car which struck defendant's car said in part.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial