Landess v. Mahler

Citation295 Ill.App. 498,15 N.E.2d 13
Decision Date16 May 1938
Docket NumberGen. No. 39670.
PartiesLANDESS v. MAHLER.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; John T. Cummings, Judge.

Action by William Landess, as administrator of the estate of Earl William Landess, against Roy Mahler, for the death of Earl William Landess in an automobile accident. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded. Beverly & Klaskin and John M. Beverly, all of Chicago, for appellant.

Raymond F. Hayes and Richard G. Finn, both of Chicago, for appellee.

McSURELY, Justice.

Earl William Landess, hereafter called plaintiff, came to his death as the result of an automobile accident; his administrator brought suit and upon trial had a verdict and judgment for $4,400. Defendant appeals.

Plaintiff, 19 years old, with a companion about the same age, Ralph Stewart, at about midnight July 20, 1935, was going south in an automobile on Cicero avenue in Chicago, plaintiff driving; on the intersection with Addison street plaintiff's car collided with an automobile driven west on Addison by defendant; plaintiff was thrown from his car and received injuries from which he died.

We are of the opinion that the finding of the jury that plaintiff was free from negligence contributing to the accident is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

We base our opinion upon the conduct of plaintiff as he approached Addison street. There were stop and go light signals at the intersection. Plaintiff drove into Cicero from a side street about four or more blocks north of Addison. Stewart testified that when approximately three-quarters of a block north of Addison he noticed that the green light was on for Cicero traffic to proceed; that they were traveling 25 to 30 miles an hour; that when they were 5 or 10 feet from Addison the signal flashed amber and then red; that plaintiff kept going--he did not reduce the speed or apply the brakes, but went into the intersection and the right front of defendant's car struck the left rear of plaintiff's car.

Two other witnesses called by plaintiff, pedestrians on Cicero, testified that plaintiff's car was traveling at about 30 miles an hour and was about 10 feet from Addison when the lights changed from green to amber and red.

A number of witnesses for defendant testified that as plaintiff approached Addison his car was going from 45 to 60 miles an hour; that it did not reduce its speed; that the light for southbound traffic changed from green to amber and red when plaintiff's car was about 100 feet north of Addison. All the witnesses agreed that as plaintiff's car approached the intersection the green light changed while plaintiff was some distance north and that he proceeded into the intersection without reducing his speed.

There was evidence that as defendant's car on Addison approached Cicero the light changed from red to green when it was about 100 feet east of Cicero and that it proceeded into the intersection with the green light; when defendant's car was approximately 40 feet into the intersection it struck plaintiff's car when it was 20 to 25 feet into the intersection.

In Rose v. Campitello, 114 Conn. 637, 641, 159 A. 887, where the statute concerning traffic signals is almost identical with ours, a general observation is made as to the duty of a driver approaching an intersecting street where there are stop and go lights, which meets with our approval. The opinion says (page 889):

“So in approaching an intersection a driver must use reasonable care to guard against the possibility that a green traffic light may turn yellow and then red, thus putting an end to his right to proceed and giving that right to vehicles approaching upon the intersecting street. He has no right, as a matter of law, when he sees a green light ahead, to approach the intersection and, without reducing his speed, proceed through it in an attempt to ‘beat’ the light; but it is his duty to drive at such a speed and to have his car under such control as a reasonably prudent person would, in view of the possibility that the traffic light may change. If he is approaching at a moderate rate of speed, careful operation of his car might not require any abatement of speed. If at a higher rate, failure to slacken his speed as he approached the intersection might be the clearest kind of negligence.”

Loraine Transfer Co. v. Foster, La.App., 144 So. 281, involved a collision between automobiles at a street intersection; plaintiff brought suit against the owner of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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