Nichols v. Smith
Decision Date | 24 May 1937 |
Citation | 111 S.W.2d 911,21 Tenn.App. 478 |
Parties | NICHOLS v. SMITH et al. |
Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Aug. 14, 1937.
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court Dec. 17, 1937.
Appeal in Error from Second Circuit Court, Davidson County; O. W Hughes, Special Judge.
Action by John Nichols, administrator of the estate of L. P. Davis deceased, against E. Gray Smith, and another. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals in error.
Affirmed.
L. M Davis and Trabue, Hume & Armistead, all of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.
Leftwich & Denney, of Nashville, for defendant in error.
John Nichols, administrator of the estate of L. P. Davis, deceased, sued E. Gray Smith and Sam Henderson, in the circuit court of Davidson county, on February 20, 1936, for $15,000 as damages for the alleged wrongful death of his intestate.
The case was tried before the honorable O. W. Hughes, special judge, and a jury in the Second circuit court of Davidson county, and the jury found the issues in favor of the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $5,000, and judgment was rendered accordingly by the court.
On the hearing of a motion for a new trial filed by the defendants, the trial judge held that he had erred in overruling a motion on behalf of the defendants for peremptory instructions in their favor (which motion had been made at the close of all the evidence), and he thereupon set aside the verdict of the jury, sustained the defendants' motion for peremptory instructions, and dismissed plaintiff's suit at his cost. Thereupon, the plaintiff moved for a new trial, but his motion was overruled, and, in due season, he prayed, obtained, and perfected an appeal in error to this court, and is here insisting that the trial court erred in setting aside the verdict of the jury and dismissing his suit. Plaintiff insists, through four assignments of error, stating his contention in different aspects, that "there was material evidence presenting an issue of fact for the jury's determination on the question of defendants' liability", and that it was, therefore, error to direct a verdict for the defendants.
For the defendants it is insisted that there is no evidence reasonably tending to prove that the injuries and death of plaintiff's intestate were the proximate result of negligence of the defendants, or either of them.
Plaintiff's declaration contains but one count, and, as a convenient method of stating certain undisputed facts, we here quote certain parts of the declaration supported by undisputed evidence, as follows:
The remaining averments of plaintiff's declaration are as follows:
It seems to have been conceded throughout the trial that plaintiff's intestate was killed at the time and place stated in the declaration; but it was not admitted that he was killed in the manner and under the circumstances averred in the declaration, or that either of the defendants was guilty of negligence which caused his death.
At the trial below, plaintiff called and examined as his witness defendant E. Gray Smith, who testified that he owned the "Packard automobile truck" described in the declaration; that it was a 1926 model passenger car, which had been converted into a three-fourth ton truck by the attachment of a truck body; that defendant Sam Henderson was employed by witness at the time in question and for about a year prior thereto, and was driving witnesses' truck in the course of such employment at the time it was reported that L. P. Davis was killed; that witness knew nothing of the accident of his own knowledge, but that it was reported to him and he "talked with Sam" (defendant Henderson) "about it" immediately after the accident; that "Sam said the accident happened on the Gallatin Pike at Leland Avenue, just outside of the city limits"; that "he (Sam) was driving over on the right-hand side of the road and going slow"; that "he never did see Mr. Davis until he struck him" and he was "on the hood of his car" and "struck the windshield"; that "he said another car passed him, and it was his idea that as the other car passed it struck this man and threw him upon the hood of this truck he was driving."
Defendant Smith also testified that, after the accident, he examined the truck defendant Henderson was driving on the night Davis was killed and found no evidence of damage to the truck, except that the windshield was broken; that there were some dents in the right fender, but "they were old dents." A photograph of the front of the truck and another of the windshield were filed by this witness (on cross-examination), and they disclose no injuries to the truck other than the broken windshield and the dents on the fender mentioned by the witness Smith.
The "accident" in question was "investigated" by J. M. Murray, a motorcycle officer, and W. H. Thornton, a deputy sheriff, a few minutes after it occurred, and each of these officers testified as a witness for the plaintiff at the trial.
We here quote the material portions of J. M. Murray's testimony as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Earle v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...v. Daniel, 21 Tenn.App. 346, 110 S.W.2d 1028; Stearns v. Williams & Price, 12 Tenn.App. 427; Polk v. Memphis, 15 Tenn.App. 73; Nichols v. Smith, 21 Tenn.App. 478; American Lead Pencil Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. Ry., 124 Tenn. 57, 65, 134 S.W. 613, 32 L.R.A., N.S., 323; see, also, 4 C.J.S., ......
-
Concklin v. Holland
...Tenn. 650, 90 S.W.2d 530 (1935); De Glopper v. Nashville Ry. & Light Co., 123 Tenn. 633, 134 S.W. 609 (1910); Nichols v. Smith, 21 Tenn.App. 478, 111 S.W.2d 911 (Tenn.Ct.App.1937)). Mr. and Mrs. Concklin must first prove the existence of a duty that Lewis owes to a visitor to the Fenwick pr......
-
Burkett v. Johnston
...146 Tenn. 389, 242 S.W. 646; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 288 U.S. 333, 53 S.Ct. 391, 77 L.Ed. 819; Nichols v. Smith, 21 Tenn.App. 478, 489, 111 S.W.2d 911, 918; Willis v. Heath, 21 Tenn.App. 179, 186, 107 S.W.2d 228, 233; Phillips v. Newport, 28 Tenn.App. 187, 187 S.W.2d 965, Prosse......
-
Delaney v. Turner
...and suffered the injuries complained of. But to adopt any one of them would be to resort to pure conjecture. In Nichols v. Smith, 21 Tenn.App. 478, 111 S.W.2d 911, a case presenting a similar dilemna, this Court said, automobile is not a 'dangerous instrumentality,' as that term is used in ......