Hume v. Mankus
| Decision Date | 11 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | 3390,Nos. 3389,s. 3389 |
| Parties | Frank M. HUME, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Louis A. MANKUS, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Young Witherspoon, Deceased, Appellee (Plaintiff below). Frank M. HUME, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Louis A. MANKUS, Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Anthony Witherspoon, Deceased, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
For the appellant the cause was submitted upon the brief of Henderson, Godfrey, Kline & Uchner, Cheyenne, and oral argument by Paul B. Godfrey, Cheyenne.
For the appellee the cause was submitted upon the brief of Louis A. Mankus, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Young Witherspoon, deceased, and Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Anthony Witherspoon, deceased; and Guy, Phelan, White & Mulvaney, Cheyenne, and oral argument by Louis A. Mankus, and Walter B. Phelan, Cheyenne.
Before PARKER, C. J., and HARNSBERGER, GRAY, and McINTYRE, JJ.
A collision between a Plymouth station wagon driven by Robert Young Witherspoon, an 18-year-old boy, and a Chevrolet pickup truck driven by Frank M. Hume, an adult, occurred on a country dirt road which had no center line marking. As a result, Robert and his younger brother Thomas, age 16, were killed, and Hume received injuries. The same person was appointed and qualified as administrator of each of the deceased boys' estates, and as such administrator brought his separate actions against Hume charging that Hume's negligence caused the death of the boys. In both actions Hume cross-petitioned charging that the administrator's decedents had caused injury to him through negligence. The two actions were consolidated for trial.
In the suit in behalf of the administrator of Robert's estate, the jury returned verdict that neither party recover, and judgment was rendered accordingly.
In the action in behalf of Thomas' estate, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the administrator and against Hume in the sum of $5,686.39, and the court rendered judgment that Thomas' estate recover that sum plus accruing interest and costs from Hume. From both of these judgments Hume has appealed, and the parties have stipulated that the two actions may be combined for those appeals.
The record indicates the accident took place at approximately the crest of a hill and where there was visibility of about 75 feet from each vehicle to the point of collision; that for a distance of 45 feet from the accident area Robert's car left tire marks on the road which showed its left wheels were some three feet one and one-half inches in its wrong travel-lane; that at a point 24 feet from the accident area the left tires of the Hume vehicle made skid marks showing his car's left wheels were seven to eight inches over the unmarked center of the road, and to that extent the Hume vehicle was also in its wrong travel-lane. After the collision, Robert's car was resting slightly diagonally but almost horizontally across the road with its rear-end at about the right-hand edge of its own travel-lane, with its right front-end headed somewhat toward the car's original direction and across the center of the road some three feet four inches from the left front of the Hume vehicle which had its right front-end over the right-hand edge of its own travel-lane, with its rear angling back toward its skid marks. While this evidence leaves the exact point of collision undetermined, the testimony of a patrolman who viewed the scene shortly after the accident explained that in the indicated type of collision the force of the impact would probably have caused the front-end of both vehicles to rise up and then settle down somewhat apart from each other.
Appellant contends the verdict of the jury in favor of Thomas' estate was not supported by the evidence and contrary to the evidence in that the accident occurred entirely on appellant's side of the road; that the verdict denying appellant recovery was not supported by and was contrary to the evidence in that Robert was negligent, and there was no evidence of Hume's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harvey By and Through Harvey v. General Motors Corp.
...the vehicle at the time of the accident. Porter v. Wilson, Wyo.1960, 357 P.2d 309; Edwards v. Harris, Wyo.1964, 397 P.2d 87; Hume v. Mankus, Wyo.1965, 401 P.2d 703; Mooneyham v. Kays, Wyo.1965, 405 P.2d 267. The trial judge found that appellee had no control over the vehicle in which she wa......
-
Palmeno v. Cashen
...the vehicle at the time of the accident. Porter v. Wilson, Wyo.1960, 357 P.2d 309; Edwards v. Harris, Wyo.1964, 397 P.2d 87; Hume v. Mankus, Wyo.1965, 401 P.2d 703; Mooneyham v. Kays, Wyo.1965, 405 P.2d 267. 3 The trial judge found that appellee had no control over the vehicle in which she ......
-
Martinez v. Union Pacific R. Co.
...Palmeno v. Cashen, 627 P.2d 163, 166 (Wyo.1981) (passenger must have "actual control" over vehicle at time of accident); Hume v. Mankus, 401 P.2d 703, 705 (Wyo.1965) (negligence of 18 year old driver cannot be imputed to younger brother passenger where driver directed auto "as he desired wi......