MacManus v. Getter Trucking Co.
| Decision Date | 03 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3129,3129 |
| Citation | 384 P.2d 974 |
| Parties | Leona MacMANUS, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. GETTER TRUCKING COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
William H. Brown, of Brown, Healy, Drew, Apostolos & Barton, and Donald E. Chapin, Casper, for appellant.
Murane, Bostwick & McDaniel, Casper, for appellee.
Before PARKER, C. J., and HARNSBERGER, GRAY, and McINTYRE, JJ.
At the time of the accident giving rise to this litigation, the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding was traveling in a westerly direction on the highway during hours of darkness. Defendant-Company's truck-trailer combination, after stopping five feet north thereof, pulled onto the highway in a left-hand turn to proceed in an easterly direction. The truck had crossed the center line and was substantially parallel thereto with the trailer still extending diagonally across the westbound traffic lane, with its rear end only approximately three and one-half feet from the north edge of the highway's oiled surface, when the trailer was struck on its right side by a pickup vehicle driven by a Mr. Grieve. The truck driver immediately stopped his equipment, jumped from the left side of the cab, and quickly went to the rear of the trailer behind which he was forced to jump to avoid being struck by a car driven by a Mr. Raab, approaching from the east, the Raab car striking the left-rear outside wheel of the trailer's left-rear tandem. Following this second collision, a car coming from the east, in which plaintiff was a passenger, and being driven by a Mr. Evans, also struck the trailer, colliding with the left-front outside wheel of the trailer's left-rear tandem, the latter collision inflicting injury upon plaintiff for which she sought recovery from both the trucking company and Evans. The case was tried to a jury which returned verdict for the defendant trucking company, and plaintiff appeals.
Although plaintiff takes exception to the admission of certain testimony because of its being hearsay, the criticized testimony is considered as inconsequential and unimportant. Other contentions, respecting alleged improprieties of certain instructions given, are without merit except with respect to an instruction numbered 11 in which appears, 'If you find that her negligence did contribute in any degree as a proximate cause,' et cetera (Emphasis supplied.). In Oeland v. Neuman Transit Company, Wyo., 365 P.2d 806, 811, rehearing denied Wyo., 367 P.2d 967, it was pointed out the use of the words, 'in any degree,' was argumentative and tended to unduly stress the importance of that to which it referred. This error, however, is of itself not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a reversal.
Of greater importance is plaintiff's complaint that her offered instruction lettered 'A' was refused. This instruction was a verbatim statement of § 31-121, W.S.1957, reading, 'The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from a private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on said highway.' The court, in refusing the instruction, said it was not appropriate 'because the evidence does not suggest that both parties were so close to the intersection as to invoke the application of the statute, and without further explanatory language, the instruction might be misleading to the Jury.'
At least one purpose of a court's instructions is to bring to a jury's attention laws which could affect circumstances shown by the evidence, and, when considered with the evidence, should assist the jury in reaching a just determination of issues involved.
A crucial element in the case was whether the truck yielded or should have yielded the right-of-way to approaching vehicles. Had the truck entered the highway so as to interfere with the passage of either the Evans or the Grieve car, the statute was violated. Any vehicle approaching at a speed and within a distance which would have warned a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hursh Agency, Inc. v. Wigwam Homes, Inc.
...to the law of the case to assist it in arriving at correct conclusions. Gale v. Kay, Wyo., 390 P.2d 596 (1964); MacManus v. Getter Trucking Co., Wyo., 384 P.2d 974 (1963). The submission of a legal proposition to a jury would necessarily be reversible error. Chosen Friends Home Loan & Savin......
-
CH, Matter of, C-89-4
...exists in the text of the instruction in misleading or misinforming the jury for its decision in that case, MacManus v. Getter Trucking Co., 384 P.2d 974 (Wyo.1963). A clear differentiation must be discerned between the initial jury instruction conference culminating in the body of law init......
-
Blakely v. State, 3834
...to defendant's testimony that such was his purpose. Thus, § 11-542 was relevant to defendant's defense. In MacManus v. Getter Trucking Company, Wyo., 384 P.2d 974, 976-977, an instruction which set forth language contained in a certain statute was offered and refused. We found the statute r......
-
Western Fire Ins. Co. v. Tim Force Tin Shop, Inc.
...Company, Inc., 1956, 75 Wyo. 121, 135-140, 293 P.2d 406; Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 61; and see, MacManus v. Getter Trucking Co., Wyo.1963, 384 P.2d 974, 975. Appellants assert that the giving of Instruction 11 was reversible Instruction 11 "A construction company, such as defen......