Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. Harrington
Decision Date | 17 May 1943 |
Docket Number | Civil 4552 |
Citation | 137 P.2d 381,60 Ariz. 354 |
Parties | PEARSON & DICKERSON CONTRACTORS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. JOHN W. HARRINGTON, a minor, by JAMES E. HARRINGTON, guardian ad litem, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yavapai. Levi S. Udall, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Messrs Baker & Whitney and Mr. Harold E. Whitney, and Messrs Patterson & McFate, for Appellant.
Messrs Morgan & Locklear, for Appellee.
The plaintiff, John W. Harrington, a minor, brought this action by James E. Harrington, his father, as guardian ad litem, against defendant, Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc., to recover damages for personal injuries sustained from being struck by a Ford truck of defendant's driven by Phil O. Ratliff, employee of defendant, on the Truck Route of Highway 89 about one-half mile east of the City of Prescott.
In its answer the defendant defended on the ground that the plaintiff was struck by its truck and injured, as alleged, due (1) to his own negligence and (2) to his contributory negligence.
The case was tried before a jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
The defendant has appealed from the judgment assigning as reasons therefor (1) that the evidence shows no actionable negligence on its part; (2) that it shows plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by his own negligence, and (3) that the court erred in its instructions to the jury.
The accident occurred July 11, 1941, at about 2:00 P.M. Plaintiff, at the time a minor 19 years of age, was on his way to work. In his complaint he charges that he was walking along said Truck Route of Highway 89, on the left side thereof in a southwesterly direction, when defendant's truck, approaching along said route from the opposite direction at a high rate of speed, drove directly towards plaintiff compelling him to flee towards the right or north side of the highway, where he was struck and run down by defendant's truck with such force that his body was thrown over the hood and his head forced through the windshield thereof.
The only eyewitnesses to the accident were the plaintiff and Ratliff, the driver of defendant's truck, and they do not agree as to the facts. According to plaintiff he was blameless, and, if the driver Ratliff is believed, he was without fault.
The physical evidence on the ground, when considered in connection with the testimony of witnesses, does not lead to any definite or satisfactory conclusion as to whose was the fault. In such circumstances, the injury being admitted, we think the liability therefor became a question for the jury under proper instructions. The trial court's action in submitting the questions of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury is convincing proof of that tribunal's conviction that the evidence of negligence on the part of defendant was sufficient to take the case to the jury.
It may be granted that plaintiff by his conduct contributed to his injury, but whether he did or not was a question for the jury. It is made so by the state Constitution, Article XVIII, section 5, which reads as follows:
"The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury."
Of this provision, in Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company v. Conwell, 21 Ariz. 480, 190 P. 88, 90, we said:
"... The decision has been uniformly followed ever since by the courts of the state. Dennis v. Stukey, 37 Ariz. 299, 294 P. 276; Campbell v. English, 56 Ariz. 549, 110 P.2d 219.
It is undisputed that the driver of defendant's truck left his side of the road and ran into plaintiff while the latter was striving as best he could to get out of the way. The driver explains his conduct as an effort to avoid injuring plaintiff. Plaintiff insists the driver could have easily avoided the accident by keeping on his own side of the road or by veering his truck farther to the left.
The driver says that when he was within 75 or 80 feet of plaintiff the latter stopped in the graveled portion of the highway and looked at him; that he then took his foot off the brake and, when within 25 or 30 feet of plaintiff, plaintiff moved in front of him; that he did not see anything to do but to swerve to the left, as he did; that the front of his truck struck a guidepost and tore off about an inch of it and 15 feet farther on collided with plaintiff, who at the time was well on the left side of the road. This witness testified that when he first saw plaintiff the latter was about 300 feet away, approaching the road in a kind of dog trot; that at the time of the collision, the truck was going about 20 miles an hour. According to this witness, although he saw plaintiff in the act of crossing the highway in front of him, he did not reduce the speed of his truck below 20 miles an hour. At this point the paved part of the road is 25 feet wide. The plaintiff was on the south side thereof when the driver, according to his statement, was 25 to 30 feet away, traveling at 20 miles an hour. It is difficult to see how plaintiff, in a split second of time, got on the north side and in front of the truck.
Plaintiff testified he stopped on the south side of the road and looked both ways; that he saw defendant's truck approaching from the west, quite a distance away, far enough away for him to cross safely under ordinary conditions; that he started across, keeping the corner of his eye on the truck all the time, and when he got to the middle of the road, just about where the white line is, he noticed the truck veering towards him; that when he first saw the truck it was on its, the right, side of the road; that he hesitated an instant and started across and the truck veered in his direction and hit him, when it was on the wrong side of the road and when he was about across.
We think the evidence was ample to show primary negligence upon the part of the defendant. Davis v. Boggs, 22 Ariz. 497, 199 P. 116.
This disposes of the first two assignments, one being that no negligence on the part of the defendant was shown, and the other that it appears that the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury was his own negligence.
Whether the instructions correctly informed the jury as to its duty under the facts is the remaining question for consideration. At the request of plaintiff, the court instructed the jury as follows:
The defendant claims that these instructions do "not properly state the law applicable to the facts of the case and placed an unconscionable burden upon the driver of a motor vehicle along a highway, and in substance told the jury that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garay v. Overholtzer
...may be had by the child, in the first instance, thereby avoiding a duplicity of actions." Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. Harrington, 60 Ariz. 354, 364-65, 137 P.2d 381, 385-86 (1943). Asserting that this waiver of medical expenses theory is applicable in Maryland, plaintiffs cite ......
-
Schmidt v. Gibbons
...if such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident and injury, the plaintiff should recover, Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc., v. Harrington, 60 Ariz. 354, 137 P.2d 381; but the legal conclusion of negligence must necessarily follow from the stated facts. Southern Pacific Compa......
-
Smith v. Delvin
...of the jury. See, e.g., Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, 64 Ariz. 101, 166 P.2d 816 (1946); Pearson & Dickerson Contractors, Inc. v. Harrington, 60 Ariz. 354, 137 P.2d 381 (1943). A directed verdict cannot be granted if any evidence shows or tends to show the plaintiff is guilty of c......
-
ESTATE OF DESELA v. PRESCOTT UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST., NO. 1
...omitted). ¶ 8 Defendants do not dispute the assignment of the medical expenses. See Pearson & Dickerson Contractors v. Harrington, 60 Ariz. 354, 364, 137 P.2d 381, 385 (1943) (permitting such an assignment by a parent to a child).4 Rather, the issue is whether the assignment of the claim to......