Meyer v. Hartford Bros. Gravel Co.

• Citation: 14 N.W.2d 660,144 Neb. 808
• Decision Date: 02 June 1944
• Docket Number: 31781.
• Parties: MEYER v. HARTFORD BROS. GRAVEL CO. et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

14 N.W.2d 660

144 Neb. 808

MEYER v. HARTFORD BROS. GRAVEL CO. et al.

No. 31781.

Supreme Court of Nebraska

June 2, 1944

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A driver of a motor vehicle about to enter a highway protected by stop signs must stop as directed, look in both directions and permit all vehicles to pass which are at such a distance and traveling at such a speed that it would be imprudent for him to proceed into the intersection.

2. Where the evidence fails to show that a driver of a motor vehicle was guilty of any act of negligence in proceeding across such a highway intersection, a directed verdict for the defendant is required.

Rosewater Mecham, Shackelford & Stoehr, of Omaha, for appellant.

Brown Crossman, West, Barton & Fitch, of Omaha, for appellees.

Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and PAINE, CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER CHAPPELL, and WENKE, JJ.

CARTER Justice.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants and dismissed the action. The plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff, a boy 16 years of age, brings the action by his father and next friend. The evidence shows that on August 12 1942, at about 9:15 a. m. plaintiff was proceeding north on highway No. 275 at a speed of 35 or 40 miles an hour. The highway was paved, level and dry and protected by stop signs at highway intersections. The day was clear and visibility good. As plaintiff approached the point where the highway intersected with county highway No. 33, he observed the defendants' truck in the middle of, and moving across, the intersection from west to east. When plaintiff first observed the gravel truck he was about 40 feet from it. He testifies that he was traveling at a rate of speed that did not permit his stopping before he struck the truck. He swerved his car to the left side of the highway in an attempt to pass behind the truck, with the result that the collision occurred in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. Both vehicles continued in a northeasterly course and came to a stop on the north side of highway No. 33, plaintiff's car coming to rest 14 feet east of the pavement on highway No. 275 and the truck 33 feet east thereof. Plaintiff testifies that when he first saw the truck it was half way over the center line of highway No. 275. There is no evidence in the record concerning the speed of the truck or of the manner of its operation. There is evidence that a growth of weeds and willows obstructed plaintiff's view to his left. That the plaintiff sustained serious injuries is not questioned. The ownership of the truck by defendants and its operation by Monford Meier as their employee in the course of his employment is admitted by the pleadings. Upon this evidence the trial court directed a verdict for defendants. The question before us is the correctness of this ruling.

In reviewing the correctness of the order sustaining the motion for a directed verdict we are required to assume the existence of every material fact which plaintiff's evidence tends to establish and all logical inferences that can be drawn therefrom.

The evidence in this case shows clearly that defendants' truck entered the intersection before plaintiff's car. Under such circumstances the driver of the truck cannot be said to be negligent unless it be shown by the location and speed of plaintiff's car that he ought to have seen it and that such an appearance of danger existed that it would constitute negligence to proceed across the intersection. Plaintiff says he did not see the truck until it was in the center of the intersection and he was at a distance of 40 feet from it. The evidence shows that the truck could have been observed for at...