King v. Gold

• Decision Date: 14 December 1937
• Docket Number: 44105.
• Citation: 276 N.W. 774,224 Iowa 890
• Parties: KING v. GOLD.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

276 N.W. 774

224 Iowa 890

KING v. GOLD.

No. 44105.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 14, 1937

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Loy Ladd, Judge.

This is an action for damages plaintiff alleges she sustained by reason of an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of two county trunk roads in Polk county. Plaintiff was riding as a guest in a car driven by her husband, and alleges that her injuries were due to the fault of the defendant in particulars which will appear in the opinion. The defense was a denial, and an affirmation that the injuries plaintiff sustained were solely caused by the carelessness of her husband. At the close of all the testimony the court sustained defendant's motion to direct a verdict in his behalf; hence this appeal.

Affirmed.

Putnam, Putnam, Fillmore & Putnam, of Des Moines, for appellant.

Hallagan, Fountain, Stewart & Cless, of Des Moines, for appellee.

SAGER Justice.

This cause presents the familiar picture of an automobile accident occurring at an intersection. It calls for the announcement of no new principles nor the extension of those heretofore laid down by us. For this reason we purposely refrain from analyzing the numerous cases cited by the parties hereto. These have been spread upon our records in recent years so frequently that " he who runs may read."

This accident occurred at the south edge of the city of Des Moines, at the intersection of McKinley avenue and South Union street. McKinley runs east and west, and South Union north and south. At the time of the accident, Colonel King plaintiff's husband, was approaching the intersection from the north; his wife sitting beside him. His approach was upgrade, and, according to his testimony, he was driving at a speed of between 35 and 40 miles an hour. As he entered the intersection, the defendant came from the west on McKinley avenue. Defendant's approach was down a slight decline to the intersection. He was driving a gravel truck which, with its load, weighed approximately 10,000 pounds. The King car was a 1935 Chevrolet sedan. Its weight is not stated.

There is no direct conflict in the testimony of the principals to the accident because it happened so suddenly that neither could cast much light on the movements of the other; and the arguments of the parties are devoted largely to drawing inferences from what plaintiff terms the " physical facts." While numerous cases have been cited by both parties, there is really little, if any, difference between them as to the rules of law applicable to accidents of this kind. Their differences arise from the deductions which they make from the circumstances disclosed by the record.

Without attempting to give the many details which may be found in the testimony of Colonel King (plaintiff's husband), this, in substance, appears to be his version of the accident:

He had never driven over this road before. As he approached McKinley avenue from the north he came by way of " quite a steep grade." On the morning of this accident, June 23, 1936, as he was going south on South Union street, the uphill road upon which he was proceeding was lined on both sides with undergrowth, brush, and saplings, with high weeds on both sides. He testifies that he had no knowledge that there was an intersection at the top of the hill, and saw neither it nor a stop sign which was located approximately 30 feet north of the graveled portion of McKinley avenue. Quoting him as to the method of his approach, he says: " I wasn't looking for a stop sign as I was watching the road straight ahead. As I was driving down South Union Street I was watching the road ahead. I wasn't gazing around looking at the scenery, and the road comes right over the top of the hill. I didn't notice or see the intersection until I was right on it. I was into the intersection when there was a-just a sort of a flash out of the tail of my eye and something struck me from the right rear, hit my car on the right rear corner."

According to his, and other, testimony, his car proceeded from 80 to 90 feet after the collision and landed on its right side on the east side of South Union street, and to the south of the intersection where the collision occurred. According to his view the truck went about 30 feet down a slight grade and stopped. The truck was not overturned and the gravel it was carrying remained undisturbed until dumped before the truck was taken away.

Plaintiff adds nothing to this testimony beyond saying that she could not see the intersection and saw no stop or other sign as they approached the intersection. The accident occurred so suddenly that she was unable to cast much light upon it.

This, in substance, constitutes plaintiff's case. There are, of course, many incidental features not here set out, and which plaintiff claims were sufficient to have carried the case to the jury.

Turning then to defendant's testimony, it appears that he was thoroughly familiar with this intersection; in fact, he had been engaged for several weeks, and was then engaged, in hauling gravel for the repair of McKinley avenue. A fellow worker, one Hartley, was driving behind defendant at a distance of about 20 or 30 feet. Hartley says that defendant came into the intersection so slowly that he (Hartley) had to come to a stop; that as defendant got into the intersection and into the traffic lane north and south, a car " shot through like a flash" and struck defendant right in the front part of the truck. This witness goes on to describe a second contact, and the final release of the car and its passage to the point where it turned over. He claims to have talked with plaintiff's husband, who, he says, admitted that he was going pretty fast, but claimed he could not see the stop sign or the intersection. This witness made no attempt to go north of the stop...