Ledford v. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1946 |
| Citation | 200 S.W.2d 981,29 Tenn.App. 675 |
| Parties | LEDFORD v. SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court Jan. 11, 1947.
Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Gibson County; Hugh L. Clarke Judge.
Action by R. M. Ledford against the Southeastern Motor Truck Lines Inc., and another, for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a collision between a power mower plaintiff was operating and a truck. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals in error.
Reversed and case remanded.
W. R. Landrum, of Trenton, and John M. Drane of Newbern, for plaintiff in error.
Arthur Rogers, of Milan, and Cate & Cate, of Nashville, for defendant in error.
Referring to the parties as of their status in the trial court, the action is one for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff Ledford in a collision between a power mower he was operating, and a large truck belonging to the defendant Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, Inc., and operated by its servant, the defendant Etheridge. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial judge directed a verdict for both the defendants and the plaintiff appealed in error.
There was evidence tending to show the following facts: The accident occurred on U.S. Highway 51, between Newbern and Dyersburg. In the immediate vicinity the thoroughfare runs in the general direction of north and south. The paved portion is 16 feet in width. There is a 9-foot grass-sodded shoulder on each side flush with the pavement.
Just prior to the accident, the plaintiff, an employee of the State Highway Department, was operating a power mower, cutting the weeds and grass on the east side of the highway on a part of the shoulder that tapered downward to a ditch. He was approaching a concrete bridge, which carried the thoroughfare across a small creek. The bridge had solid concrete bannisters on each side about 3 1/2 feet high, and guard rails that flared out from each end of the bannisters for a distance of approximately 18 feet. As he neared the end of the bridge, the plaintiff raised the blade of his mower, turned the machine away from the bank of the ditch for the purpose of crossing the highway to mow southward on the opposite side. After a part of his machine had crossed the middle of the pavement, the front was struck by the defendant's truck then proceeding south, with the result that the power mower was pushed around and its direction changed. The first impact did not throw the plaintiff from his seat, nor does it seem to have resulted in any injury, but the continued forward movement of the truck caused the rear wheels to strike the rear of the power mower, throwing the plaintiff against and under the truck, with the result that he was seriously injured. The truck continued for 40 or 50 yards before it was brought to a stop. The point of collision was about 20 to 25 feet south of the concrete bridge. The bridge proper is between 30 and 40 feet in length. North of the bridge the highway is level for a distance of 4/10 of a mile. At that point there is a hill, over which the defendant's truck came as it neared the scene.
Just prior to the accident the plaintiff's foreman had taken his position at or near the southeast corner of the bridge. He knew of the plaintiff's purpose to cross the road and mow down the opposite side. In taking that position it was the foreman's purpose to warn of any traffic which might approach while the operation was in progress. At the same time the truck, or car, used by the foreman and belonging to the State Department of Highways, was standing north of the bridge on the east side of the road, headed in the direction from which the defendants' truck approached. The foreman's vehicle bore two flags, one affixed to each side of the front bumper, and also an inscription or marks indicating that it belonged to the State Highway Department.
As the plaintiff approached the bridge and turned his mower to go up the slope of the shoulder, his view of the highway was obstructed by the abutments of the bridge to the extent that he could not see a vehicle approaching from the north. After he got upon the shoulder he did not look for approaching traffic, since in that connection he was depending on his foreman. He testified that he did not see the defendant's truck; that the last thing he remembered was when he started across the highway.
As the plaintiff started to turn his mower for the purpose of crossing the highway, the foreman from his position near the bridge looked to the north for approaching traffic and none was in sight. He testified that when the plaintiff 'got on the road, this truck came by,' that 'it got even with me before I saw it'; 'I hollered but it was too late.' In response to an inquiry by the Court as to whether the truck had passed through the bridge when he saw it, the foreman said, 'I was past the bridge myself, he came on just like that,' snapping his fingers to illustrate. He also testified that not more than 30 seconds had elapsed between the time he looked to the north and observed no traffic approaching, and the time that he was first aware of the defendant's truck.
The defendant truck driver testified in substance that as his vehicle came over the crest of the hill it was traveling 30 to 35 miles per hour; that he saw the power mower coming up the shoulder, the parked highway truck with the flags on it, and the foreman standing on the side of the road; that he realized the significance of these circumstances and knew that work was being done on the highway in the immediate vicinity ahead; that he was accordingly on the alert for 'what might happen and what could happen'; that it was obvious that 'we were going to meet at the bridge or close to the bridge'; that when the mower reached about the abutment of the bridge, the driver raised the mower blade and cut his front wheels a little to the left but not enough to enable him to determine whether the other vehicle was going to cross the road or cross the bridge; that when halfway between the bridge and the hill he began a gradual reduction in the speed of his truck so that when he reached a point a hundred feet north of the bridge he was traveling about fifteen miles per hour and crossed the bridge at that speed.
It also appears from the testimony of the defendant truck driver that while running at the rate of 15 miles per hour the truck could be brought to a gradual stop within 36 feet; and that the overall weight, including the load, was 23,000 pounds.
Upon the question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knowles et al v. State
...closely; and (3) he was driving at an unsafe speed. In support of this argument, the State cites Ledford v. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, 29 Tenn. App. 675, 682, 200 S.W.2d 981, 984 (1946) (a motorist who is aware that he or she is driving through a work zone is required to take this fact......
-
Chance v. Scroggins, 49550
...that the question of whether ordinary care required more of the plaintiff than he did, was a question for the jury." 29 Tenn.App. at 680-682, 200 S.W.2d at 983. We venture no opinion concerning the applicability of K.S.A. 8-1531(A ) (Weeks) to the facts of this Affirmed. ...