Mills v. Wells

• Decision Date: 04 March 1963
• Docket Number: No. 5544,5544
• Citation: 204 Va. 173,129 S.E.2d 705
• Parties: CHARLES R. MILLS v. ANNIE C. WELLS. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 705

129 S.E.2d 705

204 Va. 173

CHARLES R. MILLS v. ANNIE C. WELLS.

Record No. 5544.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

March 4, 1963.

J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr. (Sands, Anderson, Marks and Clarke, on brief), for the plaintiff in error.

Robert R. Merhige, Jr. (Robert P. Beaver; Merhige, Byrne, Montgomery and Baber, on brief), for the defendant in error.

JUDGE: I'ANSON

I'ANSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff, Annie C. Wells, against the defendant, Charles R. Mills, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's alleged negligent operation of an automobile. There was a jury trial which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $4,000. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, and the defendant is here on a writ of error.

The defendant contends that the court erred (1) in submitting the issue of his negligence to the jury; (2) in failing to submit to the jury the issue of whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence that was a contributing cause of the collision; (3) in refusing and granting certain instructions; and (4) in its oral instruction to the jury given in response to a juror's question.

The accident happened in the mid-afternoon on May 4, 1959, at the intersection of Rowe and Belvidere streets in the city of Richmond. The weather was clear and the streets were dry. Belvidere street runs generally north and south, has two lanes for northbound traffic, separated by a broken white line, and has two lanes for southbound traffic, separated by a broken white line. The north and south traffic lanes are separated by solid white lines. Belvidere street is U.S. route 1 through Richmond, and is very heavily traveled.

Rowe street runs east and west and enters Belvidere street from the east but does not cross it, thus forming a 'T' intersection. It is a narrow street, and there is a yield sign against traffic entering Belvidere street.

At approximately 125 feet north of Rowe street, China street enters Belvidere from the west but does not cross it. Traffic at this intersection is controlled by a traffic light.

The plaintiff, a 69-year-old woman, was a passenger in the right front seat of an automobile driven by Mrs. Lillian Wilburn. The Wilburn car was proceeding west on Rowe street to Belvidere where it stopped in accordance with the yield sign. Mrs. Wilburn testified that when she was bringing her car to a stop at the intersection she saw traffic in both northbound lanes on Belvidere street stop in obedience to the traffic light at the intersection of China and Belvidere streets. Traffic in the outside northbound lane of Belvidere was lined up from the light back to the north side of the Rowe street intersection, and a truck had stopped in this lane of travel at the south side of the intersection. Vehicles were lined up in the lane behind the truck for several blocks but the Rowe street intersection was clear of traffic. She said that since she intended to make a left turn into one of the southbound lanes on Belvidere street where there was no traffic she drove her car from its stopped position into the intersection and across the outside northbound lane of Belvidere street, and while looking to her left and 'barely moving' across the inside northbound lane the automobile driven by the defendant crashed into the left side of her car.

The plaintiff testified that when the Wilburn car was approaching Belvidere street she saw the traffic light at the China and Belvidere intersection change to red and traffic on Belvidere stop. Vehicles were backed up in both northbound lanes from the light to the Rowe street intersection. South of the intersection traffic had backed up in the outside northbound lane for some distance. There were no vehicles blocking the Rowe and Belvidere street intersection. Southbound traffic on Belvidere had also stopped at the red light at the China street intersection. Mrs. Wilburn then drove her car across the outside northbound lane of Belvidere and, while looking to her left for traffic, she slowly entered the inside northbound lane, and the automobile driven by the defendant collided with the Wilburn car. As a result of this collision the plaintiff suffered bodily injuries.

The defendant testified that he was proceeding in the inside, or passing, northbound lane on Belvidere street, at a speed estimated from 20 to 25 miles an hour, and was passing a truck traveling in the outside lane which had slowed down just south of the intersection of Rowe street; that the northbound inside lane was clear of traffic up to the China street traffic light; that there was a line of traffic in the outside northbound lane from the traffic light to the Rowe street intersection and a line of traffic behind the truck. He knew that Rowe street intersected Belvidere street, but his view was blocked by the truck he was passing and he did not see the Wilburn car until it appeared in his lane of travel.

Officer William A. Talbert, of the Richmond Bureau of Police, investigated the accident. He testified that the defendant told him he was traveling north on Belvidere street at a speed of 20 to 25 miles an hour and was passing a truck that had stopped at the Rowe street intersection; that the truck blocked his view of traffic coming out of Rowe street; that he started to slow down and at that moment the Wilburn car appeared in the intersection in his lane of travel and his car collided with it. His investigation showed that the defendant's car skidded 24 feet to the point of impact. The front of the defendant's car and the left side of the Wilburn car were damaged. The posted speed limit on Belvidere street was 25 miles an hour.

The testimony of the plaintiff and her witnesses as to how the accident occurred was accepted by the jury and their verdict was approved by the trial court. The verdict of the jury is binding on us unless it is plainly wrong or without credible evidence to support it, and the plaintiff is entitled to have her case considered in the light most favorable to her. Allen v. Brooks, 203 Va. 357, 361, 124 S.E.2d 18, 21; Rushton v. Mountcastle, 202 Va. 521, 523, 118 S.E.2d 660, 662; 1 Mich. Jur., Appeal and Error, § 270, pp. 692, 693.

Negligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause are ordinarily questions for determination by a jury. Allen v. Brooks, supra, 203 Va. at p. 361, 124 S.E.2d at p. 21; Standard Oil v. Williams, 202 Va. 362, 366, 117 S.E.2d 93, 95.

Where reasonable men may differ as to the conclusion of facts to be drawn from the evidence, or if the conclusion is dependent upon the weight to be given the testimony, a factual question is presented for determination by a jury. But where reasonable men should not differ as to the conclusion to be reached from the facts, it becomes a question of law for the court. Steele v. Crocker, 191 Va. 873, 880, 62 S.E.2d 850, 853; Nehi Bottling Co. v. Lambert, 196 Va. 949, 955, 86 S.E.2d 156, 159.

The determination of whether or not a certain speed is excessive has to be in a large measure governed by conditions then existing and not necessarily by the posted speed limit. Carroll v. Miller, 175 Va. 388, 400, 9 S.E.2d 322, 327; Richmond Greybound Lines, Inc. v. Brown, 203 Va. 950, 954, 128 S.E.2d 267, 270; 2 Mich. Jur., Automobiles, § 17, p. 457.

In the light of the principles above stated, the negligence of the defendant presented a factual question, and there is ample credible...