Johns v. Glidden, 35104
| Decision Date | 04 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 35104,35104 |
| Citation | 173 Neb. 732,114 N.W.2d 767 |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
| Parties | Russel D. JOHNS, Appellant, v. Calvin B. GLIDDEN and Benjamin Glidden, Appellees. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the facts adduced to sustain an issue are such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion therefrom, it is the duty of the court to decide the question as a matter of law.
2. When one, being in a place of safety, sees or should have seen the approach of a moving vehicle in close proximity to him, and suddenly moves from the place of safety into the path of such vehicle and is struck, his own conduct in failing to keep a proper lookout for his own safety constitutes contributory negligence more than slight in degree as a matter of law and precludes a recovery.
John J. Lawler, Omaha, for appellant.
Fraser, Wenstrand, Stryker, Marshall & Veach, Omaha, for appellees.
Heard before CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, and BROWER, JJ.
This is an action for damages sustained by the plaintiff as the result of a collision between a vehicle driven by the plaintiff and an automobile operated by the defendant Calvin B. Glidden and owned by his father, Benjamin Glidden. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants at the close of plaintiff's evidence and plaintiff has appealed.
The collision occurred on Sunday, April 26, 1959, at approximately 3 p. m., on the concrete apron of Neal's Mobil Service Station located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Maple and Seventy-fifth Streets in the city of Omaha. Immediately east of the service station was an asphalt parking area used by a supermarket. The asphalt pavement of the supermarket was built up to and joined the concrete apron of the service station. The operator of the service station had given directions that the automobiles of employees be parked on the south end of the boundary line between the service station and the supermarket to prevent supermarket customers from driving onto the conrete apron of the service station in the area of the pumps and grease bay doors of the station. On the afternoon of the accident three automobiles and a truck were so parked facing west on the south portion of the boundary line, leaving an open space of approximately 30 feet at the north end. The north car belonged to the plaintiff.
The evidence shows that plaintiff did some repair work on his car on the afternoon in question. Upon completing his repair work he decided to take a ride in a Go-Kart used as a demonstrator by the operator of the service station. The Go-Kart is described as a four-wheeled vehicle driven by a 2 1/2 horsepower motor mounted just behind the back of the seat. The wheels were 6 or 7 inches in diameter with pneumatic tires. The seat was 6 or 7 inches above the ground. Power was transmitted to one rear wheel by a V-belt. A belt tightener was used in lieu of a clutch, much the same as in the ordinary power lawn mower. Plaintiff started the engine and proceeded north from the service station building. He lifted the front and back wheels over a water hose that impeded his progress, got back into the Go-Kart, and proceeded north at a slow rate of speed. He proceeded along the front of the parked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kresha v. Kresha
...specifically referred to in a given section ...." See, also, Bassinger v. Agnew, 206 Neb. 1, 290 N.W.2d 793 (1980); Johns v. Glidden, 173 Neb. 732, 114 N.W.2d 767 (1962). In the absence of statutory regulation we must therefore ask what law is applicable to such situations. It is clear that......
- Estate of Krueger, In re
-
Bassinger v. Agnew, 42574
...of the pedestrian was a question of fact for the jury. Thomas v. Fundum, 135 Neb. 728, 283 N.W. 839 (1939); Johns v. Glidden, 173 Neb. 732, 114 N.W.2d 767 (1962). See, also, Anderson v. Wilcox, 189 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa Defendant bases her contention that the court should have directed a verdict......