Perry v. Thompson, 4306
| Decision Date | 07 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 4306,4306 |
| Citation | 196 Va. 817,86 S.E.2d 35 |
| Parties | JESSE THOMAS PERRY v. ROY K. THOMPSON Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Rixey & Rixey, Norfolk, for plaintiff in error.
Herbert & Bohannon, Norfolk, for defendant in error.
This litigation arises out of a collision between two motor vehicles which occurred at the intersection of DeBree avenue and Thirtieth street, in the city of Norfolk, on July 28, 1953, at approximately 1:40 p.m. Roy K. Thompson was driving a panel truck southwardly along DeBree avenue, while Jesse Thomas Perry was driving an Oldsmobile sedan eastwardly along Thirtieth street. When the two vehicles reached the approximate center of the intersection the front of the Perry car collided with the right side of the Thompson truck at the door, damaging both vehicles and injuring both drivers.
Thompson filed an action at law against Perry to recover damages for his personal injuries. Perry filed a cross-claim against Thompson to recover damages for his (Perry's) personal injuries and damage to his car. There was a jury trial which resulted in a verdict awarding Thompson the sum of $2,000 on his original claim and rejecting Perry's cross-claim. The trial court entered a final judgment in accordance with the verdict and the matter is now before us on a writ of error awarded Perry.
Perry does not complain of the verdict and judgment in so far as they deny his cross-claim, but insists that the evidence is insufficient to support the award of damages to Thompson. Specifically, the contention is that Thompson was guilty of contributory negligence which bars his right of recovery. The parties will be sometimes referred to as they appeared in the lower court.
The collision occurred in a residential section where the speed limit is twenty-five miles per hour. There are no stop signs or traffic lights or traffic controls at the intersection. The width of the streets is not shown in the evidence. At the time of the collision the weather was, as the plaintiff said, 'clear' and 'sunshiny.'
The plaintiff, Thompson, testified that as he approached the intersection, driving southwardly along DeBree avenue, he was proceeding at from fifteen to twenty miles per hour; that he 'looked both ways' and 'didn't see anything;' that when he reached the 'edge of the intersection' he again 'looked both ways and saw nothing coming;' and that when the front wheels of his truck were crossing the center of Thirtieth street, for the first time he saw to his right the Perry automobile which was proceeding 'pretty fast' or at 'a very rapid speed.' He estimated that when he first saw the Perry car it was 'a couple of car lengths from the start of the intersection, '196 Va. 819,' but before he (Thompson) had time to apply his brakes the collision occurred. In other words, he said, the collision occurred in less than 'a split second' after he first saw the Perry car. He gave no reason or excuse for failing to see the Perry car sooner.
Thompson further testified that immediately after the accident he said to Perry, 'Golly, what happened?' and that Perry replied, 'Gosh, I didn't see you.'
The defendant, Perry, who was going east on Thirtieth street, testified that when he was about twenty to twenty-five feet west of the intersection he could then see to his left and north on DeBree avenue a distance of about fifty feet. At that time he said there were no cars on DeBree avenue. He continued on, at a speed of about twenty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pistolesi v. Staton
...to have seen it, then there is an absolute duty to see it. Von Roy v. Whitescarver, 197 Va. 384, 89 S.E.2d 346 (1955); Perry v. Thompson, 196 Va. 817, 86 S.E.2d 35 (1955); Oliver v. Forsyth, 190 Va. 710, 58 S.E.2d 49 (1950). Testimony indicates that Staton had a clear, unobstructed view of ......
-
Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Brown, 5468
...of negligence as one who fails to keep any lookout. Matthews v. Hicks, Adm'r, 197 Va. 112, 115, 87 S.E.2d 629, 631; Perry v. Thompson, 196 Va. 817, 820, 86 S.E.2d 35, 37; Yellow Cab Co. v. Gulley, supra, 169 Va. at pp. 617, 618, 194 S.E. at p. It is true that the plaintiff was not exceeding......
-
Nehi Bottling Co. v. Lambert, 4324
...truck, when it was manifestly visible to any person capable of sight, constituted plainly approximate cause of the collision. In Perry v. Thompson, 196 Va. 817, this day decided, we quoted with approval the following 'The driver of a car who keeps a lookout and fails to take advantage of wh......
-
Smith v. Carpenter
...64 S.E. 1034, 1038. Defendant relies upon our holdings in Penose v. D. Pender Grocery Co., 177 Va. 245, 13 S.E.2d 310, and Perry v. Thompson, 196 Va. 817, 86 S.E.2d 35. A reading of these cases will disclose their factual differences from the instant Had the defendant approached the interse......