Michelson v. Davis
| Decision Date | 07 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 13833.,13833. |
| Citation | 227 S.W. 641 |
| Parties | MICHELSON v. DAVIS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thos. B. Buckner, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Suit by Ed. S. Michelson against Wellington E. Davis. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Dickinson & Hillman, of Kansas City, for appellant.
Howard L. Jamison, of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is a suit for personal injuries. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff has appealed.
The facts show that at about 8 p. m. of December 23, 1919, plaintiff alighted from an automobile on Benton boulevard near Twenty-Third street in Kansas City, Mo., and that he proceeded to cross to the west side of the street in a somewhat diagonal direction. He looked and saw a large car moving slowly toward the south on Benton boulevard. This car was 20 or 30 feet away. The night was very bad. It was snowing, there was a blizzard, and it was difficult to see any great distance, but plaintiff was able to see 20 or 30 feet. Plaintiff walked in a fast walk across the street with his coat collar turned up. He passed 20 feet in front of the large car going south in the center of the street, and, as he testified, "I was taken by surprise by a Ford," which struck him. The Ford car was proceeding in the same direction as the large car and was between that car and the west curb. Plaintiff did not see the Ford or the lights on it until it struck him. He testified that he had plenty of time to cross in front of the large car. He was struck by the front wheel and fender of the Ford. The Ford car was going faster than the large car. There is no evidence as to the thickness of the traffic at the point of the accident.
Defendant contends that his demurrer to the evidence was properly sustained for the reason that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In support of this contention defendant urges that plaintiff was guilty of negligence in crossing the street at a point not at an intersection. Of course, in the absence of ordinance or statute, we cannot say that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law on the ground assigned.
It is next insisted that, if plaintiff had looked he could have seen the Ford in time to have avoided the accident, for the reason that he could have seen it at least as far away as he saw the large car,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Powell
... ... intersections. Miller v. Williams, 76 S.W.2d 355; ... Meenach v. Crawford, 187 S.W. 882; Marks v ... Hurst, 296 S.W. 249; Michelson v. Davis, 227 ... S.W. 641; Reynolds v. Grain Belt Mills Co., 229 ... Mo.App. 380, 78 S.W.2d 12; Lowry v. Smith, 199 ... Mo.App. 163, 198 S.W ... ...
-
Wright v. Bales
...was travelling on its left hand side of the road instead of its right, was not contributory negligence as a matter of law. Michelson v. Davis, Mo.App., 227 S.W. 641; Lawrence v. Bartling & Dull Co., 255 Mich. 580, 238 N.W. Rowland v. Brown, 237 Mich. 570, 213 N.W. 90; Strange v. Los Angeles......
-
Wright v. Bales
...was travelling on its left hand side of the road instead of its right, was not contributory negligence as a matter of law. Michelson v. Davis, Mo.App., 227 S.W. 641; Lawrence v. Bartling & Dull Co., 255 Mich. 580, 238 N.W. 180; Rowland v. Brown, 237 Mich. 570, 213 N.W. 90; Strange v. Los An......
-
Reynolds v. Grain Belt Mills Co., 17526.
...is usually for the jury." [See also Ginter v. O'Donoghue, 179 S.W. 732, 733.] Plaintiff had a right to be where he was. [Michelson v. Davis, 227 S.W. 641; Moffatt v. Link, 229 S.W. 836; Meenach v. Crawford, 187 S.W. 879.] We are not unmindful of the rule that a person, crossing a street as ......