Hyde v. O'Neal

Decision Date13 October 1958
Docket NumberNo. 40738,40738
Citation234 Miss. 112,105 So.2d 553
PartiesWilliam F. HYDE v. Mrs. Hattie B. O'NEAL.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Wadlington & Corban, Biloxi, Floyd & Holleman, Wiggins, for appellant.

Luther Maples, Gulfport, Dudley W. Conner, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

ROBERDS, Presiding Justice.

William F. Hyde, the appellant, sued Mrs. Hattie B. O'Neal, the appellee, to recover money damages for personal injuries which he suffered as the result of an automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict for Mrs. O'Neal and Hyde appealed. He contends that the verdict was against the great weight of the testimony and that, for that reason, we should reverse and remand the case for another trial. We will now deal with that contention.

Some fourteen miles north of Biloxi, Mississippi, Highway 57 traverses Cypress Creek. The bridge over the creek is some eighteen feet wide and the road is about twenty-two feet wide. The collision occurred about twenty feet north of that bridge. The road runs north and south. Some three hundred yards to the south of the bridge begins a slight decline and curve in the road from the hilltop to the bridge. It is a graveled road. Hyde and Floyd Johnson and Jessie Williams, all members of the Negro race, about six o'clock on the morning of June 6, 1956, were traveling that road north in a 1954 one and a half ton Ford truck. The three were on the seat in the cab of the truck, Hyde driving, Johnson in the middle and Williams on the outside. At the same time, Mrs. O'Neal, alone in a 1956 Pontiac passenger car, was traveling that road, approaching the bridge from the north. Hyde says the collision occurred because Mrs. O'Neal was on the east side, the wrong side, of the highway. Mrs. O'Neal says the accident occurred because the truck was running at an excessive speed and it came onto the west side of the highway and hit the Pontiac. The jury returned this verdict: 'We, the jury, find for the defendant. That by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, Mrs. Hattie B. O'Neal, was not negligent.' Shall we reverse the finding of the jury? That depends on whether the jury had substantial evidence on the question of negligence, or liability, to support its verdict. If it did have such evidence, we should affirm; if it did not have such evidence, we should reverse and remand for a new trial. We will first briefly summarize the testimony on behalf of Hyde. There were only four eyewitnesses--the occupants of the two automobiles.

Hyde testified that he was thirty-two years of age, and he and the other occupants of the Ford truck were in the employ of a Mr. Gill, cutting and hauling pulpwood some twenty miles north of the scene of the accident. They passed along this road and bridge daily. They were entirely familiar with both. Hyde said he came over the hill some four hundred feet south of the bridge and he saw the Pontiac approaching from the north. He testified: 'Well, I was coming around there, when I was coming down the hill I saw the Pontiac coming around the curve. I got to the bridge before the lady did, and I saw her zig-zagging, so I slowed up and kept my side, and just as I got my front end across the bridge, and my rear wheels was the only thing on the bridge, she hit me right there, and there was nothing I could do. The car caught fire by the time she hit me, and down the hill she went.'

Again he testified: 'She throwed on her brakes and that pulled her car across the road, I guess. That's all I remember.' In another place he said: 'I held my side.' It will be noted that this witness said his rear wheels were on the bridge when the accident occurred, whereas it appears to be a fact that the accident occurred some twenty to thirty feet north of the bridge. This witness testified that he was running about thirty-five miles per hour as he approached the bridge.

Floyd Johnson and Jessie Williams, the other occupants of the truck, in the main and on the fundamental question whether Mrs. O'Neal was in the center or east of the center of the road, substantiated the testimony of Hyde, although there were discrepancies in their testimony as to where the truck was as to the bridge when the accident occurred. The three occupants of the truck had lawsuits pending against Mrs. O'Neal when the case at bar was tried.

Jack Robertson was a photographer. He took pictures of the vehicles in their damaged conditions, and of the physical scenes, the day after the accident. As to the scenes, the pictures show the road, the bridge, and the slight inclines and curves in the road. The truck had burned about as much as such a vehicle could and the Pontiac was demolished. The pictures show that the impact was between the left front of each vehicle. The truck had run off the embankment on the east side of the road, and the front of the Pontiac had been knocked to the northeast, or almost entirely around to the north, and the rear of the Pontiac was hanging over the embankment on the west side of the road.

It might be here stated that the occupants of the truck were able to get out, but all were burned, especially Hyde, who ran or walked down the road with his clothing on fire, which he finally extinguished after being badly burned. Mrs. O'Neal was thrown to the floor of her automobile. She was pinned in the car. She cried for help but Williams and Johnson, who had gotten out of the truck, did not assist her. They said they went up the road for help. Other parties arrived at the scene and helped Mrs. O'Neal get out of the Pontiac. She suffered serious injuries. Both Mrs. O'Neal and Hyde were taken to the hospital.

Alfred Meynier, a mechanic, went to the scene about ten o'clock the morning of the accident. He said the Pontiac 'was sitting on, I would say, the west side of the road with the back end down in the ditch, off the paved road.' Witness evidently meant 'graveled road', for all parties hereto agree the road was graveled. He pulled the Pontiac to the east side of the road. He said the brakes of the Pontiac were locked. The engine was mashed in. He said about half of the Pontiac was across the road on the east side thereof. 'The back wheels was off in the ditch.' The Pontiac was on the west side of the road 'almost cross-ways, facing a little north, I imagine.' He was asked: 'All you are telling the jury is that at the time of the impact Mrs. O'Neal, or whoever the driver was, had the brakes on, that is what you are telling the jury, isn't it?' and answered 'Yes, sir.' He further made this significant observation: 'You cannot jam the master cylinder with the pressure of your foot. Mrs. O'Neal had the brakes on when the impact occurred. She had her foot on the brakes and she had to hold them and hold them locked and when the wreck occurred it stayed locked.'

James T. Hudspeth, a highway patrolman, got to the scene about eleven o'clock. The Pontiac had been moved by Meynier to the east side of the road. He said he found some broken glass 'slightly in the right-hand lane going north', fifteen to twenty feet north of the bridge. The truck was off of the embankment on the east some forty feet north of the bridge. In other words, the truck was some fifteen to twenty feet north of the point where the impact took place.

John A. Gill, a constable who resided in Biloxi, heard of the accident about eight o'clock and he came to the scene. Hyde, Williams and Johnson were in the employ of his father, and they were traveling in his father's truck. He testified that the truck was off of the road on the east side thereof and was some fifty to sixty feet north of the bridge. The truck was yet burning. He found some broken glass fifteen feet north of the bridge. He says that glass was slightly east of the center of the road. The front of the Pontiac had been knocked to the northeast and the back wheels and trunk were off of the road hanging over the embankment.

The foregoing testimony was offered by Hyde, the plaintiff.

Following is a summary of the evidence offered on behalf of Mrs. O'Neal: She testified herself. She was a school teacher and had driven an automobile for thirty years. On the morning in question she was driving a 1956 Pontiac to her teaching job at D'Iberville in Harrison County, Mississippi. She was familiar with the road where the accident occurred. Her car was in first- class condition. She saw the truck when it turned the top of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1970
    ...ruling he requested and since he made no request for a mistrial, he waived any further complaint as to the statements. Hyde v. O'Neal, 234 Miss. 112, 105 So.2d 553 (1958); Aldridge v. State, 180 Miss. 452, 177 So. 765 (1938); and Wells v. State, 162 Miss. 617, 139 So. 859 It is next contend......
  • Saucier v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1976
    ...ruling he requested and since he made no request for a mistrial, he waived any further complaint as to the statements. Hyde v. O'Neal, 234 Miss. 112, 105 So.2d 553 (1958); Aldridge v. State, 180 Miss. 452, 177 So. 765 (1938); and Wells v. State, 162 Miss. 617, 139 So. 859 (1932). (234 So.2d......
  • Smith v. Miss. Coast OB/GYN
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2021
    ...an objection, the objecting party must follow up with a motion for a mistrial or else the issue is waived. Hyde v. O'Neal , 234 Miss. 112, 121-22, 105 So. 2d 553, 557 (1958). "The reasons for the rule are that we cannot put the trial judge in error on a question not passed upon by him, and ......
  • Thomas v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1978
    ...sought to raise the matter by motion for a new trial. Having deliberately taken his chances, this was too late. In Hyde v. O'Neal, 234 Miss. 112, 105 So.2d 553 (1958) this Court Counsel for Hyde objected to what they considered an improper argument to the jury by counsel for Mrs. O'Neal. Th......
  • 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