Mozley v. Rinehart
| Decision Date | 25 August 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 3474.,3474. |
| Citation | 35 N.M. 164,291 P. 294 |
| Parties | MOZLEYv.RINEHART et al. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Trial court's fact findings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.
Findings of fact supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed upon appeal.
Motorist suddenly placed in perilous position through another motorist's negligence held not contributorily negligent for endeavoring to avoid collision, though effort involved violation of traffic ordinance.
One suddenly placed in perilous position through the negligence of another is not guilty of negligence or contributory negligence in endeavoring in a prudent manner to avoid an impending collision, even though such endeavor results in the violation of a traffic ordinance.
Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County.
Action by Charles A. Mozley against Francis B. Rinehart and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed and remanded.
Motorist suddenly placed in perilous position through another motorist's negligence held not contributorily negligent for endeavoring to avoid collision, though effort involved violation of traffic ordinance.
Robert H. LaFollette, of Albuquerque, for appellants.
Joseph Gill, of Albuquerque, for appellee.
From a judgment in appellee's favor for damages resulting from an automobile collision, this appeal is taken.
On April 7, 1928, appellee's automobile was being driven east on Coal avenue at the intersection of Eighth street in Albuquerque, N. M. His car approached Eighth street at a lawful rate of speed, less than twenty miles per hour. On approaching Eighth street the driver of appellee's car observed appellants' car coming from the left down Eighth street at a high rate of speed, greatly in excess of twenty miles per hour. Its speed was such that in putting on the brakes the wheels skidded, leaving rubber marks on the pavement for a distance of sixty feet. The driver of appellee's car, on perceiving an impending collision, accelerated the speed of his car to more than twenty miles per hour in order to avoid the collision, but to no avail. Appellants' car struck appellee's car, crashing it against the curb and rolling it over.
Appellants contend that the moment the driver of appellee's car exceeded the speed limit of twenty miles per hour, he became guilty of negligence per se and the same is the direct and proximate cause of the collision for which appellee cannot recover.
Appellee contends that an emergency was created by appellants' negligence in driving his car at a high rate of speed, and that the driver of appellee's car was placed in a perilous situation, and that his conduct in accelerating the speed of his car beyond twenty miles per hour was that of a prudent person done for the purpose of avoiding the collision, if possible.
Appellants have alleged several errors growing out of the findings and conclusions made by the court, and the requested findings refused by the court. In disposing of these it will only be necessary to consider the findings and conclusions made by the court, for if they be supported by substantial evidence and be correct in law, the court could not have done otherwise than refuse the requested findings.
The court's finding No. 3 is in reality a mixed finding of fact and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MILLER v. MARSH
...manner what seemed reasonable to him under the circumstances to avoid the collision after the discovery of his danger. Mozley v. Rinehart, 35 N.M. 164, 291 P. 294. Under point three, the defendants contend that the court erred in the admission of certain evidence over their objection and ex......
-
Otero v. Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Service, Inc., 6488
...was proper. Scofield v. J. W. Jones Const. Co., 64 N.M. 319, 328 P.2d 389; Burkhart v. Corn, 59 N.M. 343, 284 P.2d 226; Mozley v. Rinehart, 35 N.M. 164, 291 P. 294. In Seele v. Purcell, 45 N.M. 176, 113 P.2d 320, 322, we quoted approvingly from 42 C. J., Motor Vehicles, Sec. 592, as 'Acts i......
- Mozley v. Rinehart