Pugh v. S. C. Hutchinson Co., Inc., s. 77-1690

• Decision Date: 04 January 1978
• Docket Number: Nos. 77-1690,77-1691,s. 77-1690
• Citation: 565 F.2d 375
• Parties: Gerald PUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. C. HUTCHINSON CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee. Mack A. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. C. HUTCHINSON CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. *
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 375

565 F.2d 375

Gerald PUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. C. HUTCHINSON CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Mack A. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. C. HUTCHINSON CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 77-1690, 77-1691

Summary Calendar. ^*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 4, 1978.

William S. Lawson, Tupelo, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Fred M. Bush, Jr., William C. Murphree, Tupelo, Miss., for defendant-appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This diversity case involves a car-truck accident. The plaintiffs, Brown and Pugh, are the driver and passenger of a car that struck the defendant Hutchinson's parked truck. According to the evidence adduced at trial, Hutchinson was driving east on Highway 78 when suddenly and unexpectedly his headlights failed. Hutchinson immediately pulled to the side of the highway. Before Hutchinson could place warning flares on the highway as required by Section 63-7-71 ¹ of the Miss.Code Ann. (1972), the Brown auto with Pugh as a passenger crashed into the rear of the truck. A jury returned a defendant's verdict and the plaintiffs have prosecuted this appeal. We affirm the district court.

The plaintiffs claim that the Hutchinson truck was parked illegally in violation of Section 63-3-903, ² Miss.Code Ann. (1972), and that such violation was negligent per se. The trial judge determined that a jury question was presented whether the truck was disabled so as to excuse Hutchinson from the statute and submitted an appropriate instruction. ³ The plaintiffs complain about this instruction for the first time on this appeal. Since the federal rules clearly require a timely objection at trial, ⁴ we have no cause to review this instruction for the first time here. The same can be said for the plaintiffs' second point of error objecting to the form of Special Interrogatory 1 ⁵ and a related objection concerning the flare requirement of Section 63-7-71. United States v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 457 F.2d 950 (5 Cir. 1972); Western Fire Ins. Co. v. Word, 131 F.2d 541 (5 Cir. 1942); Scott v. Isbrandtsen Co., 327 F.2d 113 (4 Cir. 1964).

In their next point, the plaintiffs object to an instruction given by the court concerning contributory negligence. ⁶ The plaintiffs contend that there was no evidence introduced in support of the instruction and that they were thereby prejudiced by the instruction. After a review of the evidence, we are convinced that the evidence amply supports a submission of the objected to instruction. At the time of the accident, the conditions were less than ideal the highway was wet as it had been raining, it was foggy and misty, and the driver of the car had been drinking. Taking this evidence into consideration, we think that an instruction on contributory negligence was warranted. ⁷

In their final point, the plaintiffs contend that the verdict was rendered against the great weight of the evidence. They call upon this court to overturn the jury's verdict. This we do not do lightly. On the basis of the evidence, a jury in the instant case could reasonably find that Hutchinson stopped his truck as a result of an unforeseen emergency, that his choice of stopping place was not unreasonable under the circumstances, and that his failure to place flares on the highway resulted from a lack of time to do the required act.

Finding no merit to the plaintiffs' points of error, we affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

* Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

1 Miss.Code Ann. § 63-7-71 (1972) provides in pertinent part:

(1) Whenever any motor truck or bus is stopped upon the highway except for the purpose of picking up or discharging passengers, or its lighting equipment is disabled during the period when lighted lamps must be displayed on vehicles and such motor truck or bus cannot immediately be removed from the main traveled portion of a highway outside of a business or residence district, the driver or other person in charge of such vehicle shall cause such flares, fusees, reflectors, or other signals to be lighted or otherwise placed in an operating condition and placed upon the highway, one at a distance of approximately one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle, one approximately one hundred feet in advance of the vehicle and the third upon the roadway side of the vehicle. However, if the vehicle is transporting inflammables, no flares (pot torches) fusees, oil lanterns, or any signal produced by a flame, may be used, and in lieu of such signals, either (a) three red electric lanterns or flares and three red cloth...