Mullen v. McDonald
| Citation | 494 S.W.2d 694 |
| Decision Date | 24 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 34553,34554,s. 34553 |
| Parties | Edward MULLEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bernard McDONALD and Dennis Gaunt, Defendants, Bernard McDonald, Defendant-Appellant. Edward MULLEN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bernard McDONALD and Dennis Gaunt, Defendants, Dennis Gaunt, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robertson, Ely & Wieland, St. Louis, for Dennis Gaunt.
Moser, Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary, Jaeckel, Keaney & Brown, John J. Horgan, St. Louis, for Bernard McDonald.
John P. Montrey, Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.
Plaintiff was injured while a passenger in an automobile which collided at an intersection with another car. From a verdict and judgment against them, each of the defendant drivers appeal.
Plaintiff's submission as to each driver was failure to keep a careful lookout, and each appeals on the basis that the evidence failed to support this submission. We affirm.
The collision occurred in the early morning hours at the intersection of Magnolia Street and Kingshighway Boulevard in the City of St. Louis. Defendant McDonald was proceeding west on Magnolia and was turning left into Kingshighway at the time of the collision. Plaintiff was asleep in the back seat of McDonald's car. Magnolia traffic was controlled by a flashing red light at that time. Defendant Gaunt was proceeding north on Kingshighway and traffic on that street was controlled by a flashing yellow light.
We review this case on the evidence most favorable to plaintiff.
We look first to McDonald. He arrived at the intersection, stopped his vehicle and lit two cigarettes, one for himself--one for his date. The driver in the car behind him said he looked to the right but not to the left and pulled into the intersection. McDonald said he looked both directions, and when he looked to his left saw headlights a block away (he modified this on cross-examination to two blocks) and proceeded into the intersection. His date looked left and saw nothing for three blocks. He proceeded into the intersection, attained a speed of 10 miles per hour; the front of his car crossed three lanes of Kingshighway and the impact occurred between the driver's door and the rear fender of the vehicle. Each lane was 12 feet wide. This evidence was sufficient to support plaintiff's submission as to McDonald. The testimony of the following driver warrants a finding that McDonald did not look to the left before entering the intersection. Even accepting McDonald's testimony that he looked and saw a car which he thought was Gaunt's two blocks 1 away that vehicle would have had to be traveling 90 miles per hour to have been involved in the collision which speed was completely unsupported by the testimony, the highest speed testified to being 35 by the driver behind McDonald. If...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dane By Dane v. Cozean, 43431
...negligent in failing to maintain a vigilant lookout. See McColgin v. Morgan, 592 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Mo.App.1979), and Mullen v. McDonald, 494 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Mo.App.1973), holding that the opportunity to have avoided an accident by careful lookout may be established by calculations and reaso......
-
Powell v. Watson
...that a block is approximately 300 feet long. Lilly v. Boswell, 362 Mo. 444, 452--453, 242 S.W.2d 73, 76(4) (1951); Mullen v. McDonald, 494 S.W.2d 694, 695, n. 1 (Mo.App.1973). ...
-
McColgin v. Morgan
...however, that opportunity may be established by calculations and reasonable inferences from the facts in evidence. Mullen v. McDonald, 494 S.W.2d 694 (Mo.App.1973). Under the circumstances the jury could have found the defendant should have seen the McColgin automobile the moment she reache......
-
Ritter v. Lindberg Acoustics, Inc., 34623
...have avoided the accident by any one of the three submitted actions. See Burns v. Maxwell, 418 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.1967); Mullen v. McDonald, 494 S.W.2d 694 (Mo.App.1973); Hinrichs v. Young, 403 S.W.2d 642 In Bougeno v. Thompson, 499 S.W.2d 506 (Mo.1973) the Supreme Court held that the addition ......