Lee v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 14 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | 34527. |
| Citation | 190 Miss. 692,1 So.2d 487 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEE v. REYNOLDS. |
Roberson & Luckett, of Clarksdale, for appellant.
Ed C. Brewer and Chas. A. Sisson, both of Clarksdale, for appellee.
Plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant for damages to himself and his automobile, which were sustained when struck by defendant's car upon the highway. A peremptory instruction was granted in favor of the plaintiff as to the defendant's liability. The jury returned a verdict allowing damages in the sum of one hundred dollars. Plaintiff made a motion to set such verdict aside and grant a new trial as to damages only. From an adverse ruling thereon plaintiff appeals. There is no cross-appeal. The question presented therefore, is whether, under the facts and in view of an instruction under our comparative negligence statute (Code 1930, § 511) the verdict is so inadequate as to evince prejudice justifying reversal.
Plaintiff was driving south along concrete highway number 61 about eight miles north of the city of Clarksdale, when his car ran out of gasoline and stopped. With the aid of fellow passengers he sought to push the car toward the shoulder on the right of the highway. There was some testimony that the car was being pushed farther down the highway. While so employed defendant, proceeding along the same highway and in the same direction, crashed into the plaintiff's car from the rear, practically demolishing it, and causing serious injury to plaintiff. It was about eight o'clock in the evening in May, 1940. The rear lights on plaintiff's car were burning. The lights on defendant's car had a usable range of between five and six hundred feet. Defendant testified that he did not see plaintiff's car until he was within about twenty-five or thirty feet, due, it is contended, to the glare from the lights of an approaching car. Defendant's car traveled about one hundred yards after the collision.
Without detailing further facts relative to liability of defendant which is readily apparent, we will examine the extent of plaintiff's damage. He suffered a compound fracture of the right leg, the bone protruding through the flesh. The left leg was cut and bruised, requiring fifteen stitches or sutures. His car was damaged to the extent of $172.45. There was loss of time and a doctor's bill of $25. He was compelled to remain in bed with his leg in a cast for about a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herrington v. Hodges, 42911
...largely upon the facts and decisions in: Swartzfager v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Company, 236 Miss. 322, 110 So.2d 380; Lee v. Reynolds, 190 Miss. 692, 697, 1 So.2d 487; Dixon v. Breland, 192 Miss. 335, 6 So.2d 122; Vascoe v. Ford, 212 Miss. 370, 54 So.2d 541; Scovel v. City of Pascagoula,......
-
Kettle v. Musser's Potato Chips, Inc., 42918
...the proximate cause of the collision and the resulting injuries to the appellant. The same rule of law is reaffirmed in Lee v. Reynolds, 190 Miss. 692, 1 So.2d 487 (1941); and Mississippi Power & Light Company v. Lembo, 202 Miss. 532, 32 So.2d 573 (1947). In Lee v. Reynolds, supra, this Cou......
-
Wright v. Standard Oil Company
...property, or the person having control over the property." 2 Belk v. Rosamond, 213 Miss. 633, 57 So. 2d 461 (1952). 3 Lee v. Reynolds, 190 Miss. 692, 1 So.2d 487 (1941); Robinson v. Colotta, 199 Miss. 800, 26 So.2d 66 (1946); Robertson v. Welch, 242 Miss. 110, 134 So.2d 491 (1961). 4 McMinn......
-
Boyd Const. Co. v. Bilbro, 44892
...Musser's Potato Chips, Inc., 249 Miss. 212, 162 So.2d 243 (1964); Gray v. Felts, 241 Miss. 599, 131 So.2d 454 (1961); Lee v. Reynolds, 190 Miss. 692, 1 So.2d 487 (1941). The appellants failed to file their bill of exceptions timely insofar as the foregoing error is concerned. The verdict of......