Jackson Yellow Cab Co. v. Alexander, 42495

• Decision Date: 21 January 1963
• Docket Number: No. 42495,42495
• Citation: 246 Miss. 268,148 So.2d 674
• Parties: JACKSON YELLOW CAB CO., Inc. and Charles W. Israel v. L. S. ALEXANDER.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 674

148 So.2d 674

246 Miss. 268

JACKSON YELLOW CAB CO., Inc. and Charles W. Israel v. L. S. ALEXANDER.

No. 42495.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 21, 1963.

Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, K. Hayes Callicutt, Jackson, for appellant.

Brunini, Everett, Grantham & Quin, Jackson, for appellee.

RODGERS, Justice.

This is a damage suit for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. It came to this Court on appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee for $3,750 in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi.

The testimony in this case reveals that in the early morning of April 23, 1960, appellee, L. S. Alexander, had been to Steve's place in the northern part of the City of Jackson, Mississippi. When he left Steve's place, driving an automobile, he crossed Highway 49 so that it became necessary to turn around and proceed to a through street in order that he might go to his home in the southern part of Jackson. Appellee came to the intersection of Highway 49 and Northside Drive, traveling in a northerly direction. He intended to turn west on Northside Drive. Highway 49 at this point is divided into two lanes for northbound and southbound traffic. These two lanes are separated by a neutral zone. There are two additional lanes within the intersection, constructed so as to turn into the intermediate zone, and are intended for the use of traffic turning left on Northside Drive. There is a mechanical signal light over the intersection of Highway 49 and Northside Drive. The signal light has the usual green light for 'Go', red light for 'Stop' and a yellow light for 'Caution.' It also has a green arrow signal, which comes on when the light is red, directing traffic desiring to turn left to move across the intersection to the left on Northside Drive. The testimony at this point is conflicting to some extent, but since the jury resolved the issue in favor of appellee, we point out evidence on which the jury could have reasonably based its verdict.

Appellee drove his automobile into the left lane at a time when the signal light was red and stopped. It is admitted that his left-turn signal light on his automobile was operating, and that the appellant, Charles W. Israel, saw appellee 'Stop' at the intersection and knew that his signal indicated he was about to cross the intersection into Northside Drive, and across the southbound lane of traffic, at a point where appellant, Charles W. Israel, was rapidly approaching from the north. Appellee Alexander testified that he waited at the intersection until the signal light, indicated by a green arrow, directed traffic to turn left. He then drove out into the intersection, going at a slow rate of speed, in an effort to cross the south lane of traffic on Highway 49. Appellant testified that before he (Israel) reached the intersection, the light had changed from red to green, and that he proceeded through the intersection going south. Some of his testimony on this point is as follows: '* * * what happened?' A. 'Well, as I was approaching the intersection I saw the car as he pulled over to the left in the turn lane, and saw him stop, and as I saw I had the green light, I got back down on the gas again, and naturally what anybody would figure, I figured the man was going to wait for me to come across, and just as I got about three car lengths of him, he moved right out in front of me.' Israel also testified: 'Well, now, I think as I was approaching the intersection the light was turning. * * * A. Well, there was no doubt but that he was going to make a left turn.' He finally modified his testimony somewhat by saying 'No, sir, I was going to roll on through the intersection at the speed I was going * * *'.

Mr. Robert Miller, a witness who was located on the west side of the intersection testified that the light was green facing west at the time of the accident, and that appellant-Israel, was driving about sixty to sixty-five miles per hour. A highway patrolman testified that the green arrow indicated a left turn in the traffic signal and that it stayed on approximately fifteen seconds, and thereafter the green light comes on permitting through traffic, northbound and southbound on Highway 49.

I.

Appellant complains that the trial court granted appellee several instructions which were erroneous and prejudicial, the first of which is in the following language:

'The court instructs the jury for the plaintiff that if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the traffic control light at the intersection on Northside Drive and Highway 49 was, just prior to and at the moment of the collision, red in the North and South direction, and green in the East and West direction, and if you further believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff, L. S. Alexander, had entered the intersection of Northside Drive and Highway 49 and was, at the moment of the collision, headed in a westerly direction and if you further believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, Charles Israel, was traveling in a Southerly direction and failed to bring his automobile to a stop in obedience to the traffic control device at said intersection, and that the failure of said Charles Israel to obey the traffic control device proximately contributed to said collision then your verdict must be for the plaintiff, Lucious Alexander.'

Appellant argues that the foregoing instruction is fatally defective because it relieves Alexander of all duties required under Sec. 8196, Miss.Code 1942, Rec. The pertinent part of this section is in the following language: 'The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard * * *'.

It is argued that this instruction permits a person to run a red light and turn left in front of a person running the red light from the opposite direction and proceed through the intersection. We are of the opinion, however, that this instruction is not defective for the foregoing reason because the testimony showed that although the signal light was red north and south on Highway 49, the appellee was directed by a green arrow to move out into the intersection to the left, which he did. Moreover, the testimony shows that the 'green arrow signal' pointing west stayed on for a period of only fifteen seconds before the green 'Go' signal appeared to the traffic on the north going south. The map introduced in this case shows that it is a considerable distance from the safety lane on the south side of Northside Drive to the north lane, west of the intersection. The marks made on the map by the witnesses indicate that the accident occurred almost at the northwest corner of the intersection. The appellee, therefore, had traversed almost the entire distance of the intersection. On the other hand, appellant-Israel was just entering the intersection at the point of collision. Since, therefore, appellee had turned left in obediance to a 'green arrow' signal light, and was in the process of negotiating the intersection at the time appellant-Israel entered the intersection, the provisions of Sec. 8196, Miss.Code 1942, Rec., do not apply. Sec. 8157, Miss.Code 1942, requires a driver of a vehicle to obey the instructions of an official traffic control device, and the applicable part of this section is in the following language:

'(d) Red with green arrow.

'1. Vehicular traffic facing such signal may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow but shall not interfere with other traffic * * *'.

We are therefore of the opinion that this instruction is not defective for the reason set out above, nor do we believe that the instruction assumed that appellee had a green light as he headed west. Cf. Junakin v. Kuykendall, 237 Miss. 255, 114 So.2d 666; Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Greenwood et al. v. Hand, 186 Miss. 893, 191 So. 674; Hamilton v. McCry, 229 Miss. 481, 91 So.2d 564.

II.

It appears that Instruction No. 3, taken alone, is defective under the facts here presented, although it is similar to one approved in Hamilton v. McCry, supra. We are of the opinion, however, that all of the instructions given by the court to appellee and appellant, taken together, fairly announce the law with reference to negligence and damage in this case. We do not belive that the defect in Instruction No. 3 is prejudicial error, but, if error, it is harmless because it is...