Ind v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 30 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30,950 |
| Citation | 269 N.W. 638,198 Minn. 217 |
| Parties | CHARLES IND v. EUGENE ANDREW BAILEY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in te district court for Hennepin county against the administrator of the estate of Frank Bailey to recover for damage to plaintiff's truck in an auto collision, wherein defendant interposed a counterclaim for the wrongful death of Bailey and for damage to his car. The case was tried before William C. Leary, Judge, and a jury. There was a verdict of $617.60 for plaintiff, and by direction of the court the jury found against defendant on his counterclaim. Defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Automobile -- operation -- negligence of drivers.
1. In view of the undisputed facts in this case, it was not error for the trial court to hold as a matter of law that there was no evidence from which it could be found that there was any negligence attributable to the plaintiff or his agents.
Automobile -- act of driver confronted with emergency.
2. An automobile driver may not claim benefit of the rule justifying a loss of control caused by an emergency or traffic hazard when that condition is created by his own negligent acts.
Robb & Rich, for appellant.
Leo P Doyle, Sexton, Mordaunt, Kennedy & Carroll, Cobb, Hoke Benson, Krause & Faegre, Paul J. McGough, and Nathan A. Cobb, for respondent.
Personal injury action in which the plaintiff seeks compensation for damages to one of his trucks which was struck by an automobile driven by Frank Bailey, deceased, near Elgin, Illinois, on the morning of January 4, 1934. Defendant, administrator of the estate of Bailey, interposed a counterclaim for damages for wrongful death and property loss. The trial court directed a verdict against defendant as to that. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $617.60. This is an appeal from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
The undisputed facts show that the accident in question occurred on an 18-foot paved highway having 8-foot shoulders on each side. It ran in an easterly and westerly direction at the place of collision. Plaintiff had three tractor-trailer units, hauling cement tile, which were traveling eastward at intervals of about 300 feet and at a speed of about 15 miles an hour. Bailey had left Chicago with Minneapolis as his intended destination.
The road conditions were bad. It had rained, and the pavement was covered with ice. For some miles each way from the place of the accident the road was so slippery that it was almost impossible to walk on it. There was a sharp curve in the highway a few hundred feet east of the point where the car and truck came together. The first unit had just negotiated this curve when it met the Bailey car headed west on its own right side of the highway, traveling at a speed of 35 to 40 miles an hour. Bailey passed by this unit safely without touching any part of it and entered the curve. His car then started to skid, the rear end sluing to the center of the pavement and along it for about 100 feet. The driver of the second unit all along had been traveling with the right wheels of his unit on the shoulder in order to get traction. Seeing Bailey's car swerving, the unit was slowed down from about 15 miles an hour to 4 to 6 miles an hour and was pulled farther over onto the shoulder. In the meantime, Bailey's car went entirely over onto its right shoulder of the highway and along it for about 50 feet. It ceased swerving and skidding, and it appeared as if Bailey had regained control of the car, although its speed had not been decreased. By this time the second unit had been driven over to the right so far that the left wheels were practically off the south side of the pavement. There is some dispute as to whether the unit had stopped entirely and started up again after the Bailey car quit swerving, but in any case it was not going over 4 to 6 miles an hour during all that time. After traveling safely along the shoulder for some distance, Bailey, without reducing his speed, attempted to bring the front end of his car back onto the pavement. The rear end did not come up immediately, and the car in a "split second" shot across the pavement, at an angle of about 45 degrees, a distance of 35 to 40 feet and smashed into the front end of the second unit and went into the ditch. As a result of the injuries there sustained Bailey died. The brakes on the second unit were set as soon as Bailey's car war seen coming across the highway so that the unit was going only 4 to 5 miles an hour at the time of the collision.
Defendant complains that the court erred in withdrawing the question of plaintiff's negligence from the jury. In some way the hub cap and tire of the left front wheel of Bailey's car were damaged. From this defendant urges that the jury might have found that Bailey's car came into contact with the first unit as they met and that this contact caused the admitted loss of control of Bailey's car. Any such finding on the part of the jury could not have been justified, for the undisputed evidence showed that the right wheels of the first unit were over on the shoulder...
To continue reading
Request your trial