Patterson v. Becker, 16443
Decision Date | 24 July 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 16443,16443 |
Citation | 122 Colo. 258,222 P.2d 780 |
Parties | PATTERSON v. BECKER. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Morris Rifkin, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Wolvington & Wormwood, Denver, for defendant in error.
We will herein refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court, where plaintiff in error was plaintiff, and defendant in error was defendant.
The action grows out of a collision between an automobile and a pedestrian at the intersection of East Colfax avenue and Adams street in Denver, Colorado. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant, and an appropriate judgment was entered.
At the close of all the evidence counsel for plaintiff moved that the jury be instructed to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant, assessing her damage in such amount as the jury might determine to compensate her for the injuries which she sustained. The grounds for this motion were that, under the evidence admitted upon the trial, defendant was guilty of negligence as a matter of law, and that there was no evidence creating an issue of fact for determination by the jury upon the defenses of contributory negligence and unavoidable accident, upon which defendant relied.
Defendant, just prior to the accident, had been driving west on East Colfax avenue and upon coming to the intersection at Adams street brought his automobile to a stop because the traffic light was red for traffic moving westward on East Colfax avenue. It is undisputed that defendant's car was to the right of the safety zone, leaving the pedestrian crosswalk clear for persons desiring to cross East Colfax avenue in front of his car.
Plaintiff testified that she had been waiting on the north side of East Colfax avenue intending to board a westbound streetcar at the said intersection; that the streetcar was approaching; and that she stepped into the crosswalk while the traffic light was green, in her favor, and started for the safety zone when she was hit by defendant's automobile, and that the left end of the bumper of his car struck her down. She further testified that when she was about halfway to the safety zone the traffic light flashed red, and before she reached the safety zone the collision occurred, as a result of which she sustained a broken leg and other injuries.
Defendant testified that he stopped at the intersection to wait for the red light to change to green; that his car was stopped between the buttons outlining the safety zone and the curb on the north side of East Colfax avenue. He stated that, while he was thus stopped, no pedestrian crossed in front of him, and when the light changed from red to green he started his car forward, and 'as I started up, just as I started up, in a flash something stepped in front of me.'
The defendant was questioned as an adverse party under Rule 43C(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, during the course of which he testified as follows:
'
* * *
* * *
'
'
The deposition of plaintiff was taken prior to the trial and was admitted in evidence without objection. The following appears in this deposition:
A diagram of the intersection was introduced in evidence and the plaintiff placed markings thereon indicating the point at which she moved into the street toward the safety zone. From this diagram...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Brazel, 6748.
...from the conceded facts. Stephens v. Lung, 133 Colo. 560, 298 P.2d 960; Swanson v. Martin, 120 Colo. 361, 209 P.2d 917; Patterson v. Becker, 122 Colo. 258, 222 P.2d 780. This record presents purely a fact case, one in which reasonable minds might very well differ as to the cause of the coll......
-
Lindauer v. LDB Drainlaying, Inc.
...222, 201 P.2d 901. Plaintiffs introduced sufficient evidence of such negligence to submit the question to the jury. Patterson v. Becker, 122 Colo. 258, 222 P.2d 780; Eisenhart v. Loveland Skiing Corp., 33 Colo.App. 120, 517 P.2d Appellant has cited authority law for the proposition that a c......
-
Rigot v. Conda, 17851
...that the minds of reasonable men could only come to one conclusion, that Alex Rigot was contributorily negligent. Patterson v. Becker, 122 Colo. 258, 222 P.2d 780; Seward v. York, 124 Colo. 512, 239 P.2d 301; Schell v. Kullhem, 127 Colo. 555, 259 P.2d In the absence of contributory negligen......
-
Stephens v. Lung, 17789
...to the inferences which might fairly be drawn from conceded facts." Swanson v. Martin, 120 Colo. 361, 209 P.2d 917, 919; Patterson v. Becker, 122 Colo. 258, 222 P.2d 780. Second: Did the trial court err in submitting to the jury an instruction upon the subject of contributory This question ......