McGuire v. Steel Transp. Co., 41448

• Decision Date: 09 January 1950
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 41448,41448,2
• Citation: 359 Mo. 1179,225 S.W.2d 699
• Parties: McGUIRE v. STEEL TRANSP. CO., Inc., et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 699

225 S.W.2d 699

359 Mo. 1179

McGUIRE v. STEEL TRANSP. CO., Inc., et al.

No. 41448.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Jan. 9, 1950.

J. D. James, Hogsett, Trippe, Depping, Houts & James, Kansas City, for appellant Beeson.

Thomas C. Swanson, K. L. Stockman, Kansas City, for respondent.

BARRETT, Commissioner.

The plaintiff, Nathan McGuire, and another Iowa boy, Hearn, 'hitchhiked' a ride in Byron C. Beeson's 1946 Chevrolet truck. They rode in the truck bed, covered with a tarpaulin, with their heads toward the cab. It was dark and raining and the boys were asleep. The truck was traveling in a northerly direction on concrete Highway 71 By-Pass in Jackson County at a speed of 30 to 35 miles an hour. As it proceeded around an upgrade curve the truck was involved in a sideswiping collision with a tractor-trailer traveling at the same speed in the opposite direction on the downgrade of the curve. The tractor-trailer was being driven by John C. Slentz and it is assumed, for the purposes of this opinion only, that it was being driven for Steel Transportation Company. Nathan McGuire was seriously injured and instituted this action for damages against his host, Byron C. Beeson, and Slentz and Steel Transportation Company. Upon the trial of his cause a jury exonerated both Beeson and Slentz and returned a verdict against Steel Transportation Company in the sum of $5,000. Upon the single specification of error in the giving of an instruction, the trial court sustained the plaintiff's motion for a new trial as to all three defendants. The defendant, Beeson, has alone perfected an appeal from the judgment and claims that the trial court should have sustained his motion for a directed verdict for the reason that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence from which the jury could draw the inference that he was guilty of any negligence proximately concurring to cause the collision. Oganaso v. Mellow, 356 Mo. 228, 201 S.W.2d 365.

The negligence pleaded against all the defendants was a violation of their duty to exercise the highest degree of care in the operation of their trucks, Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 8383, 'by failing to keep their vehicles as closely to the right-hand side of the highway as practicable and by operating their vehicles to the left of the center of the highway and on the wrong side of the highway when such vehicles were meeting and in such close proximity with one another that they collided.' Beeson's liability was submitted upon the hypothesization that 'he failed to * * * keep his vehicle as closely to the right-hand side of the highway as practicable, * * *.' Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 8385(b); Edwards v. Woods, 342 Mo. 1097, 119 S.W.2d 359; Benoist v. Driveaway Co. of Missouri, Mo.App., 122 S.W.2d 86.

A highway patrolman made an investigation after the accident but Beeson and Slentz were the only witnesses with firsthand personal knowledge of the circumstances of the collision. The three of them were called as witnesses by the plaintiff. It is not necessary to detail the patrolman's testimony. It is sufficient to say that he gave no evidence from which it could be inferred that Beeson was negligent and the respondent does not claim that he did. Beeson said that he saw the Slentz truck rounding the curve when it was 200 to 250 yards away. Each driver was aware of the fact that he was meeting a truck and both of them 'dimmed their lights.' Beeson said that when the trucks were 30 or 40 feet apart he noticed that the trailer on Slentz' truck 'was starting to skid or come into my lane of traffic.' He said: 'Naturally when I saw this trailer skidding into my lane of traffic I tried to avoid an accident by turning to the right,' and he thought his front wheel was about to leave 'the edge of the slab' when he felt the impact of the trucks. He said that his truck had passed the tractor part of the other vehicle and that he had turned to the right to avoid a collision and 'I know that the side of his trailer come in contact with the side of the cab on my truck at a point just ahead of the windshield was the first point I noticed the contact, about a foot ahead of the windshield his trailer hit my truck.' He testified that his truck was struck by the 'rub rail' and left rear trailer wheel of the other truck. He said: 'I determined the point of impact to be about in the center lane on my half of the highway.' When the vehicles were 40 to 50 feet apart and before the trailer swung in his lane of traffic he said: 'I was driving directly down the center of my half of the highway, the center line was to my left, and naturally the other edge of the highway was to my right. * * * I was (driving) within about twelve inches of the outer edge of the slab and about the same distance from the center line,' and 'I was about forty or fifty feet from it, just right onto it, when it started to skid in my lane of traffic, I immediately tried to pull to the right, to try to avoid an accident.'

Slentz said that he saw Beeson's truck when it was 150 to 200 yards away and that in the last 100 feet or so 'It appeared to be O. K., in its lane of traffic,' traveling at a speed of approximately thirty-five miles an hour. He said that the first information he had that anything had gone wrong was when 'I felt a slight jar and heard the impact, the sound of the impact.' He described the damage to Beeson's truck in this language: 'the side of his truck was damaged where it had hit my trailer, and the rear axle of his truck was damaged where it had hooked axles with my trailer.' As to his own driving position Slentz said: 'To my knowledge it was all on my side of the road, my side of the highway. * * * the tractor was definitely on my side of the road.' He did not see what happened but he said: 'The unit was moving along perfectly. * * * I noticed nothing abnormal about the movement.' On cross-examination there were the following questions and answers:

'Q. When the fronts of the two vehicles passed each other there was plenty of clearance? A. As far as I could tell there was plenty of clearance.

'Q. You were on your side and he was on his side? A. That is right.

'Q. There were three or four feet of clearance, I believe you said in your deposition? A. Approximately.

'Q. At the time of the impact you were watching the road ahead as you had been when you passed him? A. That is right.

'Q. So you didn't see the position of your trailer at the time of this accident at all? A. No.

'Q. All you can do is assume as to what position it was in, that is all that is possible for you to do, isn't that correct? A. Yes.

* * *

* * *

'Q. So far as you know the Beeson truck remained on its own side of the center line at all times out there...