Moseley v. Bailey, 44205
| Decision Date | 16 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 44205,44205 |
| Citation | 193 So.2d 729 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mrs. Bory MOSELEY v. R. L. BAILEY, Jr., a Minor, Suing by R. L. Bailey, as Next Friend. |
J. Joshua Stevens, Jr., Thomas J. Tubb, West Point, for appellant.
Harvey S. Buck, A. M. Edwards, Jr., West Point, Burgin & Gholson, Columbus, for appellee.
R. L. Bailey, Jr., a minor, filed suit against Mrs. Bory Moseley for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when defendant's automobile collided with plaintiff while he was riding his bicycle. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
Defendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to grant a peremptory instruction requiring a verdict for defendant. We hold that the evidence was insufficient to make a jury question on the issue of liability. The peremptory instruction should have been given. We reverse and enter judgment here for defendant.
The rule is well settled that in determining whether a peremptory instruction should be given the court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must give the plaintiff the benefit of all permissible inferences. The facts of this case are stated consistent with this rule.
The accident occurred on Broad Street in West Point, Mississippi, at a point ninety-six feet east of the center of the intersection of Calhoun and Broad Streets. Defendant was driving her automobile east on Broad Street. When she reached the intersection where Calhoun Street crosses Broad, she stopped in obedience to a traffic signal. When the light turned green she started forward, nodded to an acquaintance as she was under the traffic light, and continued east on Broad. She looked directly ahead as she drove the ninety-six feet from the center of the intersection to a point located opposite a driveway on the south side of Broad Street leading to the Newell home. Broad Street is thirty feet wide measured from curb to curb. An automobile was parked on the south side of Broad Street, headed west so that its rear end was opposite the west edge of the Newell driveway. The sidewalk is parallel to and nine and one-half feet south of the south curb line of Broad Street. A telephone pole is located at the west edge of the Newell driveway between the sidewalk and the street. A hackberry tree twenty-nine inches in diameter is located sixteen feet west of the Newell driveway on the neutral ground between the sidewalk and the street.
Defendant stopped her automobile at the west side of the intersection and had increased her speed to fifteen or twenty miles per hour when she reached a point opposite the rear end of the parked automobile. At that point the plaintiff was struck and knocked up into the air. This was the first time defendant saw the plaintiff.
Defendant then applied her brakes and turned to the left, preventing her automobile from running over the plaintiff. The right front headlight of defendant's automobile was broken from the impact.
At the time of the accident plaintiff was five and a half years old. The trial was held fifteen months later. Plaintiff was permitted to testify after a preliminary examination to determine whether he was qualified as a witness. He testified that he had been playing with the Newell child prior to the accident; that when he started home, he rode down the sidewalk to the Newell driveway; that he then stopped and looked both ways and could not see anything, and went out the driveway where he was hit beside the parked automobile.
The plaintiff's father testified that he talked to defendant at the hospital shortly after the accident, at which time she told him that she was the one who hit the boy and how sorry she was about it, and that if she had been noticing that side of the street more closely, she might have seen him, but that she didn't see him in time to stop. He also testified that he believed defendant told him she must have knocked him thirty feet in the air. The chief of police testified as to skid marks that were found at the scene of the accident. He did not have any notes and did not know the exact length of these skid marks, but thought they were not over thirty feet long. He further stated that the skid marks could have been shorter, and he was not sure just where they started and ended.
A school is located less than a block east of the scene of the accident, and another school is located about a block away in another direction. The accident took place in a school zone in a residential neighborhood. The defendant was well aware of the nature of the neighborhood in which she was driving. The accident occurred about four o'clock in the afternoon. The school traffic had cleared by three-thirty o'clock. Defendant was driving at a reasonable rate of speed under the circumstances. She was keeping a lookout in front. There is no evidence exceeding a scintilla that defendant saw, or in the exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Splain v. Hines
...reasonably stop or otherwise avoid injuring the child. See, e.g., Smith v. Alford, 245 So.2d 188, 189 (Miss.1971); Moseley v. Bailey, 193 So.2d 729, 731 (Miss.1967). Notwithstanding this rule and our limited scope of review, Splain would have us hold Hines liable as a matter of law. We may ......
- Westmoreland v. State, 46118
-
Wright v. Standard Oil Company
...(1961). 4 McMinn v. Lilly, 215 Miss. 193, 60 So.2d 603 (1952). 5 Agregaard v. Duncan, 252 Miss. 454, 173 So.2d 416 (1965); Moseley v. Bailey, 193 So.2d 729 (Miss.1967). Cf. Tidwell v. Ray, N.D.Miss., 208 F.Supp. 952 (1962). 6 Gray v. Turner, supra, at 472. 7 67 C.J.S. Parent and Child § 46,......
-
Gunn v. Grice
...are to be taken as true in determining the issue of whether the plaintiffs' evidence has made a question for the jury. See Moseley v. Bailey, 193 So.2d 729 (Miss.1967) and Shaw v. Phillips, 193 So.2d 717 (Miss.1967), and other cases to the same effect too numerous to Mr. Grice, father of de......