Masonholder v. O'Toole
| Decision Date | 16 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | 37262 |
| Citation | 210 N.W. 778,203 Iowa 884 |
| Parties | HENRY MASONHOLDER, Appellant, v. WILLIAM O'TOOLE et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED APRIL 7, 1927.
Appeal from Muscatine District Court.--WILLIAM W. SCOTT, Judge.
Suit for damages growing out of an automobile accident. From a directed verdict in favor of defendant plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Nichols Tipton & Tipton, for appellant.
J. F Devitt and Johnson, Donnelly & Lynch, for appellees.
ALBERT, J. DE GRAFF, C. J., and EVANS and MORLING, JJ., concur.
A short distance south of the town of Letts, in Muscatine County, is a highway intersection, a road running north from Letts intersecting at approximately right angles an east and west road, the latter being known as the "White Way," and the north and south road being referred to in the record as the "Letts Road." On the 17th day of April, 1923, appellant approached this intersection from the west in his Buick automobile. In the car with him were three women, the car being driven by appellant. The O'Toole car approached this intersection on the Letts Road, traveling in a northerly direction. The graded part of these roads was about 30 feet in width. The Letts road, being a well traveled road, had been dragged. The White Way, plaintiff says, was rough, and not in very good condition.
Counsel make some contention as to whether or not the view of appellant to the south was obstructed as he approached this intersection, but we take it from his own testimony and from the physical facts shown by the evidence in the case that from a point some 15 rods west of this intersection to the intersection his view was obstructed. He testifies that, before he reached this point, he saw O'Toole coming from the south on the Letts Road; that he (appellant) was traveling something like 15 to 20 miles an hour; but that, as he approached this intersection, he slowed down his car, so that, by the time he reached the intersection, he was not traveling over 10 miles an hour; that he did not sound his horn or any other alarm on approaching the intersection; but that, when he reached the intersection, he saw the O'Toole car coming toward him; and that he stepped on the gas and tried to cross ahead of the O'Toole car. He locates this point by saying, in substance, that, if the fences on the west side of the Letts Road had been extended across the road, what would be east of the line so made was the intersection he refers to; and further says that, when he had gotten his car from 5 to 7 feet into the intersection, he saw the O'Toole car about 16 feet from the intersection, running 25 to 30 miles an hour, the O'Toole car being on the east side of the north and south highway; but he claims that the O'Toole car angled across the Letts Road at appellant, and caught his car at the center of the road running north and south.
The physical facts in the case, however, hardly sustain this contention of appellant's, because appellant's car, a photograph of which is in evidence, shows that it was struck almost squarely on the right-hand side thereof, leaving impressions on the car of both of the headlight frames of the O'Toole car.
Appellant had been familiar with this intersection for a long time, having lived in this vicinity for a great many years, and was a frequent traveler over the same, both north and south and east and west. He finally says that, as he was approaching this intersection, and was about 12 rods west thereof, he saw the O'Toole car, and that he (O'Toole) was coming pretty fast. From that point to the intersection he did not look to see if he could see O'Toole again, and says:
This is a sufficient statement of the facts to cover the questions involved herein.
A motion to direct verdict for the defendant having been sustained, we turn to a consideration of the questions raised.
Section 5043, Code of 1924, provides:
"An adequate signaling device shall in all cases be sounded on approaching curves, tops of hills, and the intersecting highways in the country where the operator's view is obscured."
This statute made it the affirmative duty of appellant, in approaching this intersection, to sound his signaling device. This he failed to do.
Section 5035, Code of 1924, reads:
"Where two vehicles are approaching on any public street or highway so that their paths will intersect and there is danger of collision, the vehicle approaching the other from the right shall have the right of way, provided, however, that such vehicles coming from alleys and private drives, where view is obstructed, shall stop...
To continue reading
Request your trial