Phillips v. Carlson
| Decision Date | 11 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39695,39695 |
| Citation | 178 Kan. 206,284 P.2d 604 |
| Parties | Samuel N. PHILLIPS and Peggy Phillips, as Next of Kin and Parents of John Nathan Phillips, Deceased, Appellees, v. Frank CARLSON, Elmo W. Carlson and Calvin A. Carlson, Doing Business as Carlson & Sons Trucking Line, and Hawkeye Casualty Company, Appellants. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Record examined in an action for wrongful death under the facts as more fully set forth in the opinion, and held: (1) The jury's answers to the special questions submitted to them are sustained by sufficient competent evidence; (2) the answers are not inconsistent with each other; (3) they are in harmony with the general verdict, and (4) the trial court did not err in entering judgment for plaintiffs.
2. When a jury, after retiring to deliberate on the case, requests the court to have the evidence of any witness read to them, it is proper for the court, in the presence of or after notice to the parties or their counsel, to direct the official reporter to read the testimony of the witness requested. (G.S.1949, 60-2913.)
T. F. Railsback, Kansas City, was on the briefs for appellants.
A. J. Herrod, Kansas City, was on the briefs for appellees.
This was an action brought by Samuel N. and Peggy Phillips to recover damages for the wrongful death of their two-year-old son, resulting from an intersection collision between a panel truck, in which the deceased child was riding, and a tractor-trailer combination transport truck used by defendants Carlson in the operation of their trucking line, which was insured as to liability by the defendant Hawkeye Casualty Company.
As the facts will be more fully stated, we will briefly note the pleadings, as they require little attention. Plaintiffs' petition alleged defendants' truck driver was negligent and responsible for the collision and resulting death of their son, while defendants charged the negligence of the operator of the panel truck in which the deceased child was riding was the cause of the accident. From the issues thus joined and the evidence presented, along with certain special questions and instructions given by the trial court, which were agreed upon by the parties, the case was submitted to the jury. The jury returned its answers to the special questions submitted by the court and its general verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The trial court approved the verdict and entered judgment for plaintiffs. From the order of the court overruling defendants' motion for a new trial, they appeal and assert (1) that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and (2) certain rulings of the court are erroneous.
The evidence, pertinent to the questions in this appeal, may be briefly stated: Plaintiffs were both employed at night and, on the date of the accident, left their two-year-old son in the care of the Shivers family, in whose home plaintiffs and their child lived in an apartment. On the evening of June 1, 1951, Mr. Shivers started out for a pleasure ride in his one-half ton panel truck, taking his wife, son, daughter and the little Phillips boy. Mr. Shivers drove the truck, his wife sat on his right, and his son, daughter and the plaintiffs' son sat on a tool chest immediately back of them in the panel truck. About nine o'clock the same evening, Mr. Shivers drove his panel truck north on Kansas State Highway 7. This highway intersects U. S. Highway 24-40, which is a four-lane super highway running in an easterly-westerly direction. Each of the four lanes is fifteen feet wide, and the two eastbound are divided from the two westbound by a medial strip four feet wide. There is a stop sign at the intersection on Highway 7. Mr. Shivers stopped his panel truck at the sign and looked to his left and observed a car coming from the west on Highway 24-40 about a half mile away, then looked to the right and saw nothing. The car approaching from the west seemed to Mr. Shivers to be a safe distance away and he proceeded to cross the highway. As he arrived in the inside eastbound lane of Highway 24-40, he again looked to the west and to the east. At this time the front end of his panel truck was about even with the medial strip of the highway. When he looked to the west he saw the headlights of the eastbound car approaching in the inside lane at a speed which he estimated at 70 to 75 miles per hour. He then looked east and saw the large transport truck of defendants Carlson about 600 feet away, traveling west at a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour. During this time, Mr. Shivers estimated the speed of his panel truck to be 10 to 15 miles per hour. He testified he again looked west and, believing the car to be approaching at a high speed, mashed down on the accelerator of his panel truck in an attempt to get across the highway. His truck had arrived in the north...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ruebke
...court will allow the reading of testimony to the jury if it requests such after retiring to deliberate the case. Phillips v. Carlson, 178 Kan. 206, 284 P.2d 604 (1955). After the jury received supplemental instruction No. 1, it did request more specific testimony. The court then had the tes......
-
United States v. Campbell
...73 S.Ct. 134, 97 L.Ed. 687; State v. Perkins, 1909, 143 Iowa 55, 120 N.W. 62, 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 931, 20 Ann. Cas. 1217; Phillips v. Carlson, 1955, 178 Kan. 206, 284 P.2d 604; Autry v. State, 1949, 34 Ala.App. 225, 38 So.2d The question arose during the trial in United States v. Rosenberg, sup......
-
State v. Andrews
...the parties to the action. (Jacks v. Cloghley, 203 Kan. 699, 457 P.2d 175; State v. Wolfe, 194 Kan. 697, 401 P.2d 917; Phillips v. Carlson, 178 Kan. 206, 284 P.2d 604.) We cannot assign as error the failure of the trial court to cause defendant's testimony to be read when not requested by t......
-
Jacks v. Cloughley
...substance that he could not see all the details of exactly what movements were made during the affray. The appellants in Phillips v. Carlson, 178 Kan. 206, 284 P.2d 604, made an argument similar to the appellants here. There the court at the request of the jury, in the presence of or after ......