Nelson v. Inland Motor Freight Co.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1939
• Docket Number: 6603
• Citation: 92 P.2d 790,60 Idaho 443
• Parties: HARRY E. NELSON and FRANCES C. NELSON, Respondents, v. INLAND MOTOR FREIGHT COMPANY, Appellant and Respondent, and SAM HALL, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

92 P.2d 790

60 Idaho 443

HARRY E. NELSON and FRANCES C. NELSON, Respondents, v. INLAND MOTOR FREIGHT COMPANY, Appellant and Respondent, and SAM HALL, Respondent

No. 6603

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 8, 1939

AUTOMOBILES-NEGLIGENCE-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-QUESTIONS FOR JURY-EVIDENCE, SUFFICIENCY OF-FINDINGS NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL, WHEN-SEPARATE TRIALS-INJURY TO GUEST-JOINT ENTERPRISE.

1. In action against owner of automobile and against owner of trailer truck for injuries sustained by occupant of automobile in collision with rear of parked truck on foggy night, whether truck owner was negligent in failing to have proper lights and whether automobile owner was contributorily negligent in driving at excessive speed were questions for the jury.

2. The Supreme Court may not disturb the verdict of a jury merely because the court does not agree with the jury's findings and may interfere only where the evidence is clearly and wholly against the finding or where some essential fact has not been proven.

3. Where there was credible evidence to establish both negligence of truck owner and contributory negligence of automobile owner, the Supreme Court could not, on ground of insufficiency of evidence, disturb jury's finding that truck owner was negligent.

4. In action against owner of automobile and against owner of trailer truck for injuries sustained by automobile occupant wherein automobile owner filed cross-complaint against truck owner, whether separate trials of main action and cross-action should have been granted was addressed to trial court's sound discretion, and refusal thereof would not be disturbed on appeal unless one of parties was prejudiced.

5. It is the policy of the law to limit the number of trials as far as possible. (I. C. A., sec. 12-605.)

6. In action against owner of automobile and against owner of trailer truck for injuries sustained by automobile occupant in collision with truck wherein automobile owner filed cross-complaint against truck owner, refusal to permit separate trials of main action and cross-action was not error.

7. In action for injuries sustained by occupant of automobile in collision with truck, evidence that automobile owner in inviting guest to make trip had told guest to bring a friend along if she wanted to and that guest had invited occupant did not establish that automobile owner and occupant were engaged in a "joint enterprise" so as to make occupant chargeable with negligence of automobile owner.

8. In action against owner of automobile and against owner of trailer truck for injuries sustained by occupant of automobile in collision with truck, wherein automobile owner filed cross-complaint against truck owner, and evidence of negligence was sufficient to warrant finding against truck owner, instruction authorizing inference that there was proof of some defective condition of equipment of truck was not prejudicial, though there was no such proof.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. Bert A. Reed, Judge.

Action for damages by Harry E. Nelson and Frances C. Nelson, his wife, and also by Sam Hall for damages against the Inland Motor Freight Company. Judgment for plaintiffs and the company appealed. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondents.

W. B McFarland, for Appellant, Inland Motor Freight Company.

The court erred in refusing to sever the issues on the complaint and cross-complaint for trial. (Fay v. Dorow, 224 Iowa 275, 276 N.W. 31; Manley v. Paysen, 215 Iowa 146, 244 N.W. 863, 84 A. L. R. 1330, and note; Hoad v. New York Central R. Co., 3 F.Supp. 1020.)

Hall guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law, and court should have granted non-suit, direct verdict and motion for new trial, or judgment N. O. V. on cross-complaint. (Bennett v. Deaton, 57 Idaho 752, 68 P.2d 895, 903; Adkins v. Zalasky, 59 Idaho 292, 81 P.2d 1090; Ranstrom v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 18 F.Supp 256; Magee v. Hargrove Motor Co., 50 Idaho 442, 296 P. 774; French v. Tebben, 53 Idaho 701, 27 P.2d 474.)

There was evidence from which the jury could find the parties in the Hall car were engaged in a common or joint enterprise and the issue should have been submitted to the jury. (French v. Tebben, supra; McCoy v. Krengel, 52 Idaho 626, 17 P.2d 547; Griffin v. Clark, 55 Idaho 364, 42 P.2d 297.)

Gray & McNaughton, for Respondents, Harry E. Nelson and Frances C. Nelson.

In the absence of a showing that the plaintiff Frances Nelson and Sam Hall were at the time engaged in a joint enterprise, any contributory negligence of Sam Hall as driver would not impute to the plaintiff Frances Nelson. (Stoneburner v. Richfield Oil Co. of California, 118 Cal.App. 449, 5 P.2d 436.)

Whitla & Knudson, for Respondent Sam Hall.

Counsel complains of the court trying the case together instead of splitting it up and hearing it piece-meal. It is the rule of law that these matters are largely in the discretion of the trial court. (Bradford v. Boston & M. M. R. Co., 225 Mass, 129, 113 N.E. 1042; Williams S. S. Co., Inc., v. Wilbur, 9 F.2d 622, (9th C. C. A.); Turner v. Standard Ice & Fuel Co., 292 F. 38; King v. Manson, 165 Wash. 90, 4 P.2d 885; Schmidt v. Riess, 186 Wis. 574, 203 N.W. 362.)

AILSHIE, C. J. Budge, Givens and Holden, JJ., concur. Morgan, J., did not participate in the decision.

OPINION

AILSHIE, C. J.

--This is an action arising out of an automobile collision which occurred on Highway No. 10 a short distance west of Post Falls, Idaho, when a car owned and operated by respondent Sam Hall, in which respondent Frances C. Nelson was riding, collided with a trailer and truck owned and operated by the appellant Inland Motor Freight Company late in the evening of March 30, 1937. For brevity, we will hereinafter refer to the Inland Motor Freight Company as the "Company."

Respondents Harry E. Nelson and Frances C. Nelson (husband and wife) brought an action against Sam Hall (respondent) and the Company (appellant) to recover for personal injuries to respondent Frances C. Nelson. Respondent Sam Hall appeared and answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against appellant Company asking for damages to his person and his car. The appellant Company answered the complaint of Frances C. Nelson and Harry E. Nelson and the cross-complaint of respondent Sam Hall and by counter-claim against Hall asked for damages to their truck and trailer.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Harry Nelson and Frances Nelson, for $ 2,566.68 against the Company and another verdict in favor of respondent Sam Hall against the Company in the amount of $ 2,000.00. Judgments were entered and this is an appeal therefrom.

The facts briefly stated are as follows: Respondent Hall, who lives and works in Spirit Lake, Idaho, invited a Miss Dell to go with him to Spokane in his car and told her to invite anyone else she wanted to invite. Accordingly she invited respondent Frances Nelson to go along. The three of them went to Spokane the afternoon of March 30th, the women attending to shopping and seeing a movie, Hall seeing his sick wife and attending to his business. At eleven that night the three, all riding in the front seat of Hall's LaSalle sedan, proceeded from Spokane to Spirit Lake via the Appleway-Ross-Point Road. As they crossed the state line and onto the straightaway, they encountered patches of fog and the visibility was quite low. Hall was driving on the right side of the road and a few hundred yards west of the Stone Church (east of the state line) he saw the appellant's trailer parked on the highway (the right hand south side) and, unable to stop in time, ran into the back end of the trailer. There was no other car near and no one save the occupants of the Hall car and the driver of the trailer and truck were in a position to see the accident.

Appellant's assignments of error, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are all directed in some respect against the sufficiency of the evidence. As to the exact circumstances attending the accident, it is difficult to determine. There is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant's trailer and truck were on the proper side of the highway; that the Hall car was on the right and proper side of the highway; that it was a foggy night; that the appellant's trailer and truck had been stopped on the highway for some ten or fifteen minutes and that it was stationary at the time of the impact. There was testimony both ways as to the speed of Hall's car, varying from 30 miles an hour, as testified by Hall himself, to the allegation of respondent Frances Nelson that his speed was in excess of 60 miles per hour. There was evidence that Hall was driving recklessly at the time of the accident and evidence that he was driving carefully and could not avoid the accident.

There is evidence that the driver of appellant's truck and trailer had been forced by an unavoidable accident to stop on the highway and that he was unable to get the truck off the roadway. Johnson, the driver of the truck and trailer testified that a wheel on the trailer caught fire and he was forced to stop and put out the fire; and that the wheel locked on him. This fact was, in part, corroborated by another witness. There was evidence that the appellant's trailer did not have sufficient clearance lights and tail lights and there was also evidence that the trailer had all the lights required by law and in addition thereto had...