Pachl v. Officer, 7314
Decision Date | 26 August 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 7314,7314 |
Citation | 79 N.D. 143,54 N.W.2d 883 |
Parties | PACHL v. OFFICER et al. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Questions of negligence and contributory negligence are questions of fact for the jury to determine when reasonable minds might draw different conclusions from the facts.
2. When the facts relating to negligence or contributory negligence are not in dispute and but one conclusion can reasonably be deduced therefrom the question of negligence or contributory negligence becomes a question of law for the court.
3. Evidence examined and it is held to establish as a matter of law that the decedent's negligence contributed proximately to his death.
Lyche & Lyche, Grand Forks, for appellant.
Degnan, Hager & McElroy, Grand Forks, for respondents.
This is a suit for damages resulting from an automobile accident. On the evening of Sept. 9, 1949, James Pachl, a single man, 22 years of age, together with his friend, Donald Voiss, a young man 21 years old, left Grand Forks in Pachl's dark colored, Ford car to go to a dance at Ardoch. Before they left the city they bought six pints of beer, drank one each at the time and one after leaving town. When they had gone about eight or nine miles west on Highway No. 2 they had a flat tire. They drew to the north side of the road, almost if not, entirely off the pavement. There they left the car without lights or flares. The time was about 7:45 P.M. It was a clear night just turning dark. They found the tire was ruined and that the spare tire was flat. They drank a third can of beer each and decided to take off the spare and to stop a car for a ride into the city to have it repaired. Voiss began taking off the tire. Pachl was standing at his right. Voiss describes it this way:
'Well, we got some tools out of the car and started to take the tire off the back end of the car and I was taking the tire off as Jim was standing by my right side, and he happened to look up and seen the lights of a car coming so he started crossing the highway to flag it down and as he ran he said, 'Hurry up, Don, there is a car coming.' Shortly after that I heard the crash. * * *
The car that thus hit James Pachl was a 1948 Chevrolet, Tudor automobile, which had been driven between nine and ten thousand miles. It was in good condition, with four wheel, hydraulic brakes. At the time of the accident it was being driven by George Officer. The two Officers with their wives and one additional passenger, Inez Olness, had left Ryder, North Dakota, that morning and were on their way to Grand Forks on business. From there they had intended to go to Detroit Lakes. At the time of the accident George Officer claims to have been driving 45 miles an hour. Regarding the accident he testified:
'
'
'
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
'
'
Dorothy Officer, the wife of George was sitting on the right-hand side on the front seat. She describes the accident as follows:
'Q. And would you tell the jury in your own words what happened and about where it happened and the time it happened? A. Well, it was getting dark and it was approximately eight or nine miles from Grand Forks and the first I seen was this boy that just leaped right directly in our path.
'Q. Did your car strike that boy? A. Yes, it did.
'Q. And do you know about what part of your car struck him? A. Well, it would be the side where I was sitting more.
* * *
* * *
'Q. Now, can you tell the jury about how far James was from the front of your car when you first saw him? A. Well, he was right there when I saw him.
'Q. And were you looking forward at that time and immediately prior thereto? A. Yes, I believe I was.
'Q. Would you be able to say how far in front? A. Well, he was, I would say--he would be in the air when I saw him.
'Q. And did you notice what George did about that time? A. Well he applied brakes immediately.
'Q. And did the impact take place sometime after the brakes had been applied or---- A. No, I would say almost simultaneously.
'Q. And in what way did you first see this man coming or in front of you? Can you say which way he was going? A. Well he was going south, directly across the road.
'Q. And can you tell from what you saw how he was travelling, whether he was walking or---- A. No, he was coming at a fast speed. It seemed like he just made a leap thinking maybe he would make it or----
'Q. So he was running? A. Yes.
'Q. Now, do you know where your car was when the impact took place with reference to its position on the highway? A. Well, we were in the south lane of traffic.
'Q. And did anything happen after the impact? A. Well, I couldn't just say. We could have----
'Q. To the car. A. Well, from the impact there was a swerve.
'Q. And what else happened. Anything fly up? A. The hood flew up.
'Q. And what did George do with reference to the car? Did he continue on or bring it to a stop? A. He brought it to a direct stop.
'Q. Did you notice what happened to James Pachl right after the impact? Do you recall? A. Well, sitting on the right hand side as I was, he just seemed to land directly down beside the pavement.
*...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peterson v. Bober
...different minds cannot reasonably draw different conclusions either as to the facts or as to the deductions from the facts. Pachl v. Officer, N.D., 54 N.W.2d 883; State ex rel. Brazerol v. Yellow Cab Co., 62 N.D. 733, 245 N.W. 382 and cases cited. First State Bank v. Kelly, 30 N.D. 84, 98, ......
-
Olson v. Cass County Elec. Co-op., Inc., CO-OPERATIV
...Co., 70 N.D. 704, 297 N.W. 774; Leonard v. North Dakota Co-op. Wool Marketing Association, 72 N.D. 310, 6 N.W.2d 576; Pachl v. Officer, 79 N.D. 143, 54 N.W.2d 883. We would point out with respect to the defendant's appeal from the order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the ve......
-
Severinson v. Nerby
...Co., N.D., 65 N.W.2d 127; Goulet v. O'Keeffe, N.D., 83 N.W.2d 889; Armstrong v. McDonald, 72 N.D. 28, 4 N.W.2d 191; Pachl v. Officer, 79 N.D. 143, 54 N.W.2d 883. The order denying motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the judgment are SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, BURKE and TEIGE......
-
Spenningsby v. Peterson
...one conclusion therefrom. Armstrong v. McDonald, 72 N.D. 28, 4 N.W.2d 191; Fagerlund v. Jensen, 74 N.D. 766, 24 N.W.2d 816; Pachl v. Officer, N.D., 54 N.W.2d 883. The evidence concerning the conduct of defendants' employees establishes that they abandoned a stalled vehicle in the center of ......