Maynard v. City of Helena
Decision Date | 05 July 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 8552.,8552. |
Citation | 117 Mont. 402 |
Parties | MAYNARD v. CITY OF HELENA. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, First District, Lewis and Clark County; George W. Padbury, Jr., Judge.
Action by Marie Maynard, administratrix of the estate of James M. Lewis, deceased, against City of Helena to recover damages for death of plaintiff's decedent. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.Lester H. Loble, Albert H. Angstman, and Albert Anderson, all of Helena, for appellant.
Sherman W. Smith, of Helena, for respondent.
E. C. COMER, District Judge (sitting in place of Justice ADAIR, disqualified).
This is an action brought by the plaintiff and respondent, Marie Maynard, as administratrix of the estate of James M. Lewis, deceased, to recover damages for the death of said decedent, against the defendant and appellant, City of Helena. The issues herein are fairly stated by the defendant and appellant in its statement of the case as follows:
The defendant and appellant alleges in its brief ten assignments of error by reason of which it is contended the verdict and judgment given and made in favor of the plaintiff and respondent, and against the defendant and appellant, by the district court, should be set aside. We will take these assignments up in their order.
(1) The first assignment of error is that the district court erred in overruling the general demurrer of the defendant and appellant, City of Helena, to the complaint herein, for the reason the said complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant, and the basis of the argument is that there is no allegation in the complaint alleging the giving of a notice to the respondent city of the time and place where the injury is alleged to have occurred, resulting in the death of the plaintiff's intestate, Lewis, as provided for in section 5080, of the Revised Codes of 1935, Chapter 122 of the Session Laws of 1937.
This assignment of error must be overruled. The same question was raised and decided adversely to the contention of the respondent herein, in the case of Green v. City of Roundup, Mont., 157 P.2d 1010, in an able opinion rendered on April 18, 1945, concurred in by all of the justices of this court, wherein the question was given thorough consideration, and the reasons for the decision clearly and definitely stated. We are of the opinion that the district court properly overruled the demurrer of the defendant and appellant, City of Helena.
(2) Assignment of Error No. 2 is that, the court erred in overruling the defendant'sobjection to the introduction of any evidence, and involves the same question as Assignment No. 1, i.e., the sufficiency of the complaint, and we think it without merit.
(3, 4) The third assignment of error alleges that the court erred in denying the motion for non-suit, and the fourth assignment is that the court erred in denying motion for directed verdict. The defendant and appellant urges in support of these two assignments that the deceased minor, Lewis, was guilty of contributory negligence, and urges that these two boys, before proceeding down the hill in question, stopped and talked the matter over, and counsel for defendant and appellant further urge
Counsel for plaintiff and respondent contend there is no evidence here of contributory negligence, and direct attention to the fact that Jack Burrell, the boy who rode down the hill with Lewis, testified that it was not until he just got about down to the corner that he first knew there was a drop-off, and that he could not bring his bicycle to a stop, because the ground was too soft and the gravel was too loose, and that he was not racing down the hill; that he had never been down Pine Street before; that Jimmie Lewis, decedent, had never been down the hill before; that he had no knowledge whatsoever that if he and the Lewis boy continued down Pine Street, there was a drop-off of ten feet at the end of Pine Street into the next street below, and that when he first found there was a ten-foot drop-off at the end of the street, it was after they had started, and after they had gotten almost to the bottom before he knew it was there. That there is evidence to show that Jimmie Lewis was a well and healthy boy, and normal in every way, and that the bicycle on which the Lewis boy was riding, and the brakes thereon, were in excellent shape.
Counsel for plaintiff direct attention also on the question of contributory negligence; that the city engineer testified that he had been up on Pine Street where it intersects Water Street a few times, and that he did not go down Pine Street because it was very dangerous, very steep, and there was a right-angle turn at the bottom, and that he would feel far safer going down Joliet Street than Pine; that there were no warning or other signs at the top advising that Pine Street was dangerous;that standing at the top of Pine Street, no determination could be made that the street made a right-angle turn to the right at the bottom, and also, that Otto Krieg, one of the City Commissioners, testified you could stand at the intersection of Joliet and Pine Streets, and see that Pine Street made a right-angle curve at the bottom, while another member of the city council said you could not see the bottom of the hill from the top of the hill.
It is the settled law of this state for many years past, that where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the defense of contributory negligence has been established, the question is one of fact for the jury to determine. Montague v. Hanson, 38 Mont. 376, 99 P. 1063;Ahlquist v. Mulvaney Realty Co., Mont., 152 P.2d 137. The question of contributory negligence was submitted to the jury herein on proper instructions, and by their verdict, the jury has determined the deceased herein was not guilty of contributory negligence, and the determination of the jury is final and should not be disturbed. Williams v. Hample, 62 Mont. 594, 205 P. 829;Carey v. Guest, 78 Mont. 415, 258 P. 236;Marsh v. Ayers, 80 Mont. 401, 260 P. 702;Olson v. City of Butte, 86 Mont. 240, 283 P. 222, 70 A.L.R. 1352;Armstrong v. Billings, 86 Mont. 228, 283 P. 226;Autio v. Miller, 92 Mont. 150, 11 P.2d 1039;Pierce v. Safeway Stores, 93 Mont. 560, 20 P.2d 253;Wise v. Stagg, 94 Mont. 321, 22 P.2d 308;Fulton v. Chouteau County Farmers' Co., 98 Mont. 48, 37 P.2d 1025;Toole v. Paumie Parisian Dye House, 98 Mont. 191, 39 P.2d 965. We find no merit in this assignment of error.
(5) The fifth assignment of error is that, the court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, and in support thereof the defendant and appellant urges two propositions of law, viz.:
(a) That the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the court to the jury in its Instruction No. 24. Said Instruction No. 24 was given at the request of the defendant, City of Helena, and is as follows:...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holland Furnace Co. v. Rounds
...prejudice. See 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, Sec. 1111, p. 634; Berthelote v. Loy Oil Co., 95 Mont. 434, 28 P.2d 187; Maynard v. City of Helena, 117 Mont. 402, 160 P.2d 484. The evidence was uncontradicted in the instant case that defendant had been prejudiced. The evidence indicated that de......
-
Kudrna v. Comet Corp.
...Pacific Railway Co., 80 Mont. 492, 497, 261 P. 261 (1927); Marsh v. Ayers, 80 Mont. 401, 260 P. 702 (1927); Maynard v. City of Helena, 117 Mont. 402, 160 P.2d 484 (1945). In the present case, the Comet truck driver created his own Although the stalled Mid-West Coast truck did present an obs......
-
Holland v. Konda
...peril or emergency. He is only required to act as a reasonably prudent person under those circumstances. Maynard v. City of Helena, 117 Mont. 402, 416-417, 160 P.2d [142 Mont. 545] 484. However, appellant Konda contends that the jury was not properly instructed because the court refused to ......
-
Rose v. Intermountain Transp. Co.
...it is clear that the defendant suffered no prejudice.' To the same effect under like circumstances is the case of Maynard v. City of Helena, 117 Mont. 402, 160 P.2d 484. In Ballos v. Natural, 93 Cal.App. 601, 269 P. 972, 974, the court said: 'The jury was also instructed that--'It is part o......