McMillan v. Keck
| Decision Date | 24 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | 11778. |
| Parties | McMILLAN v. KECK. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Garfield County; Charles E. Herrick Judge.
Action by Edwin McMillan against C. M. Keck, doing business under the firm name of Keck's Garage. To review a judgment granting nonsuit and dismissing case, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
C. W. Darrow and Sadie H. Korn, both of Glenwood Springs, for plaintiff in error.
M. J Mayes and Frank Delaney, both of Glenwood Springs, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff, McMillan, instituted this action to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant.
The charge of negligence is that an employee of the defendant backed an automobile through a doorway of the defendant's garage upon the adjoining sidewalk on which the plaintiff was passing, and knocked him down, thereby inflicting serious injuries to his person. It is charged that the automobile was backed out of the garage upon the sidewalk in a negligent and careless manner, with considerable speed, without notice or warning to pedestrians passing on the sidewalk, and that the driver's view was so obstructed that he could not see a person on the sidewalk in the rear of the car as it was being backed through the doorway to the street.
The collision occurred at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, on Grand avenue in Glenwood Springs, in the middle of the block while plaintiff was passing along, going north on the sidewalk in front of the garage which stands flush with the building line of that avenue.
The evidence offered to establish negligence consisted of the testimony of the driver of the automobile and of the plaintiff himself. At the conclusion of the defendant's case the court granted the defendant's motion for a nonsuit, and dismissed the case. The plaintiff comes here on error.
We think the action of the court must be sustained.
The plaintiff testified that he was quite hard of hearing; that he was in the habit of passing in front of the garage several times a day; that he did not see the car until it struck him that there was nothing to obstruct his view; and that he was walking at a normal gait; that he was hard of hearing, and he would not say a horn was not sounded, but, if there was, he did not hear it.
Mr Rule, the driver of the automobile, called as a witness by the plaintiff, testified that he commenced to back the car at a distance of about two-thirds of the way back from the entrance; that the car was situated in the middle of the driveway, and that, as he proceeded to back it out, he looked along the left side of the car; that, as he approached the front of the garage, he sounded the horn; that, when the rear of the car was almost flush with the entrance, he stopped the car,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Const. Co. v. Holt
...happening of an accident raises no inference of negligence. Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Thompson, 65 Colo. 4, 169 P. 539; McMillan v. Keck, 82 Colo. 434, 260 P. 1079. In Home Public Market v. Newrock, 111 Colo. 428, 142 P.2d 272, 273, this court ""The rule of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evi......
-
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Williams, 11831.
... ... 676; City of Denver v. Spencer, 34 ... Colo. 270, 276, 82 P. 590, 2 L.R.A. (N. S.) 147, 114 ... Am.St.Rep. 158, 7 Ann.Cas. 1042; McMillan v. Keck, 82 Colo ... 434, 260 P. 1079. We do not gainsay this well-established ... proposition of law, and counsel for plaintiff does not ... ...
- Sholes v. Citizens' State Bank of Holyoke
-
Home Public Market v. Newrock, 15328.
...of reasonable care, should have been known to it. The evidence discloses that the glass broke, nothing more. In McMillan v. Keck, 82 Colo. 434, 260 P. 1079, 1080, we said: 'Proof of the happening of an accident or occurrence of an injury will not justify the inference of negligence.' In Den......