Luppes v. Harrison, 47235.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 47235.,47235. |
| Parties | LUPPES v. HARRISON. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
LUPPES
v.
HARRISON.
No. 47235.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
June 15, 1948.
Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; G. R. Hill, Judge.
Action for damages as a result of defendant's automobile skidding off the paved highway and striking plaintiff's parked car. Tried to court without a jury. Judgment entered against defendant, who has appealed.
Affirmed.
[32 N.W.2d 810]
R. G. Remley, of Webster City, for appellant.
Prince & Guthrie, of Webster City, for appellee.
WENNERSTRUM, Justice.
Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages sustained as the result of defendant's claimed negligence in driving his truck into plaintiff's automobile which was parked off a paved highway. The defendant claimed that a car had suddenly driven onto the highway in front of him, causing an emergency, which necessitated the application of the brakes of his truck causing the resulting skidding of it into plaintiff's car. The case was tried to the court, a jury having been waived. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and defendant has appealed.
The collision occurred about 4:00 P.M. on November 28, 1944 at or near the intersection of north and south Highway No. 69 and east and west Highway No. 20. Highway No. 69 does not cross Highway No. 20 at right angles, the north portion of Highway 69 being a short distance to the east of the portion of the highway extending to the south, thus forming an ‘S' curve. A gasoline station is situated to the southeast of the intersection of the two highways and adjoins both of these roads for a distance of 140 feet. The station is about 50 feet from the pavement on each highway and the space between the building and the pavements is gravel surfaced. On the day of the collision there had been rain, sleet and snow and the pavement was in a slippery condition. Appellee's automobile was parked on the graveled drive at a point about twenty feet south of the east and west pavement. There is a ‘slow’ sign to the east of the north portion of Highway 69 on Highway 20 and at this point appellant, who was proceeding west, claims he slowed down his speed to 20 to 25 miles per hour and did not increase it. He testified that as his truck approached the intersection a car pulled out ahead of it from the north portion of Highway No. 69 without stopping for a ‘stop’ sign and proceeded in a westerly direction at an approximate speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour when the appellant's truck was only 50 feet away. There was no obstruction to the view of the highway to the north from Highway 20. It is further shown that there were no other parked cars between that of the appellee and the south edge of Highway 20. It is the claim of the appellant that by reason of the car driving out in front of him an emergency developed and that he applied his brakes causing his truck to skid from the north side of Highway 20 and to strike appellee's car. As the result of the impact the parked automobile was moved 20 to 40 feet west of its original location.
The appellee in his petition has alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the appellant in that he was driving his truck at an excessive and dangerous rate of speed under the existing conditions; that appellant failed to drive his truck in a careful and prudent manner in that he
[32 N.W.2d 811]
was driving at a speed greater than was reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and other conditions that then existed on the highway at or near the intersection; that his truck had defective brake equipment; that he failed to keep a proper lookout; and in not being able to stop his truck within the assured clear distance ahead. The appellee further alleged that he was free from contributory negligence. The appellant denied the allegations of appellee's petition.
The trial court found that by reason of the ‘slow’ sign which was on Highway 20 east of the intersection the appellant should have realized he was driving in a hazardous zone and that in suddenly applying the brakes and turning his truck to the left with its resulting skidding he was guilty of failing to drive his car in a careful and prudent manner and at a speed that was reasonable and proper under the circumstances. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial