Mormino v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 February 1966
• Docket Number: No. 65 C 254(3).,65 C 254(3).
• Citation: 249 F. Supp. 981
• Parties: Frank MORMINO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

249 F. Supp. 981

Frank MORMINO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

No. 65 C 254(3).

United States District Court E. D. Missouri, E. D.

February 15, 1966.

Vincent M. Igoe, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Richard D. FitzGibbon, Jr., U.S. Atty., Robert H. Kubie, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for defendant.

REGAN, District Judge.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the operator of a mail truck. The Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 1346(b), Title 28, U.S.C.

The accident occurred at the intersection of Twentieth Street and Delmar Boulevard in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Twentieth Street is a two-way highway 36 feet wide, with two lanes in each direction. On the morning of January 27, 1965, plaintiff was driving his Renault Caravelle automobile northwardly on Twentieth Street in the east or curb lane, and came to a stop near the intersection of Delmar in compliance with an electric signal which was then red for northbound traffic. It was plaintiff's intention to make a right turn into Delmar Boulevard. A 2½ ton Chevrolet truck owned by the United States Government and used in the mail service was being operated northwardly on Twentieth Street in the lane nearest the center of the street, but partly in the curb lane. The truck was also stopped at the intersection, at a slight angle to the right or east, having turned to avoid possible contact with a truck turning right into Twentieth from Delmar.

When the electric signal changed to green for northbound traffic, the mail truck started in motion, and after moving forward a few feet its right rear bumper caught on the left front fender and bumper of the Renault, which was still stopped, dragging the Renault several feet and onto the sidewalk before the truck came to a stop. The mail truck was being operated by Lynn Wiedle, an employee of the United States, in the course and scope of his employment, and on business for the defendant.

Missouri law governs this case. By statute, every motorist must exercise the highest degree of care in the operation of a motor vehicle. Section 304.010 RSMo, V.A.M.S. At the time Wiedle started forward, he knew or should have known by reason of the angle and position of the mail truck that any vehicle to his right would be placed in danger by the forward motion of the truck.

Under these circumstances it was Wiedle's duty to keep a lookout to ascertain whether a vehicle was in fact to his right. He wholly failed to keep such a lookout. As stated in Braun v. Hoffmeister, Mo., 366 S.W.2d 406, 408,

"The degree of care of a motorist upon the highway, as required by statute, § 304.010 R.S.Mo.1959, V.A. M.S., imposes upon the operator of motor vehicles upon the streets and highways of this state the continuous duty to exercise the highest degree of care at all times and all places thereon to keep a lookout for persons thereon and in every other respect. Mayfield v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 337 Mo. 79, 85 S. W.2d 116, 123-124 11-16; Faught v. Washam, 365 Mo. 1021, 291 S.W. 2d 78, 82 4. To fulfill that duty, the motorist is required to look in such an observant manner as to enable him to see what a person in the highest degree of care for the safety of himself and others would be expected to see under similar circumstances."

Again, in Myers v. Searcy, Mo., 356 S.W.2d 59, 62, it was stated,

"The driver of a motor vehicle has the duty to keep a proper lookout and to watch where he is driving."

On a number of occasions the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a motorist is under a duty to exercise the highest degree of care to keep a lookout not only ahead but laterally. See Knox v. Weathers, 363 Mo. 1167, 257 S.W.2d 912, 917; Kimmich v. Berry, Mo., 319 S.W.2d 546, 548.

We find from the greater weight of the credible evidence that Wiedle was negligent in failing to exercise the highest degree of care to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles on the highway, and particularly for vehicles he might reasonably...