Ratliff v. Nail, 45629
| Decision Date | 16 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45629,45629 |
| Citation | 231 So.2d 798 |
| Parties | Eddie RATLIFF, a Minor by Luther Ratliff, Father and Next Friend v. James H. NAIL, Jr. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Mitchell M. Lundy, Jay Gore, Jr., Grenada, for appellant.
Sullivan, Dunbar & Smith, Clarksdale, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Eddie Ratliff, a minor from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Grenada County entered as a result of a jury verdict in favor of appellee in a personal injury action. We affirm.
Appellant sued appellee for damages resulting from a collision between a motorcycle driven by appellant and an automobile owned and operated by appellee. The accident happened on Highway 51 about 11:40 p.m. on October 9, 1966, a short distance south of the city limits of the City of Grenada. Eddie Ratliff was riding a motorcycle and James H. Nail was following him in his car. As both vehicles were traveling in a southerly direction at a point going down a gradual slope, appellant attempted a left hand turn into the driveway of his home at the same time appellee was attempting to pass. Appellant testified that before he attempted to make his left turn into the driveway of his home that he blinked his brake lights and gave a hand signal of his intention to turn and that as he made his turn he was struck by the car. Appellee testified that before he attempted to pass the motorcycle he blinked his lights and pulled into the left lane and appellant without giving any signal turned his motorcycle to the left and although appellee turned his car to the left in an attempt to avoid the collision, the motorcycle struck the right front fender of his car. The force of the collision threw appellant into the windshield of the car and he was then thrown back onto the center of the highway. Appellee testified that shortly after the collision and before he had an opportunity to get any help, a pickup truck came over the crest of the slope traveling at a speed estimated by Nail to be 70-75 miles per hour and ran over appellant and turned him completely around in the road. This pickup truck was later located at Camp McCain by the highway patrolman who investigated the accident. The driver of the truck when questioned by the patrolman admitted that he ran over the motorcycle but denied that he struck appellant as he was lying in the highway. A driver of a school bus testified that a pickup truck passed him a short distance from the point of the accident. He estimated the speed of the truck at the time it passed him to be 60-65 miles per hour and accelerating. He lost sight of the truck momentarily when it went over the crest of the slope and when he saw it again it was swerving in the road and sparks were flying.
Appellant argues two propositions for the reversal of this case, both of which were passed on by the trial court in considering a motion for a new trial. The first proposition is that the trial court was in error in granting at the request of appellee an instruction which instructed the jury that the driver of the pickup truck was negligent in the operation of his truck and if the jury believed from a preponderance of the evidence that such negligence contributed to appellant's injury, then appellee was not responsible for such of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gatewood v. Sampson
...MISCONDUCT. ¶ 5. Jurors are generally precluded from testifying to impeach their own verdict. See Miss. R. Evid. 606(b); Ratliff v. Nail, 231 So.2d 798 (Miss.1970); Index Drilling Co. v. Williams, 242 Miss. 775, 137 So.2d 525 (1962). However, "a juror may testify on the question whether ext......
-
Fairman v. State, 57118
...will not be permitted to impeach a verdict rendered by them. Witherspoon v. State, 441 So.2d 1363 (Miss.1983), citing Ratliff v. Nail, 231 So.2d 798 (Miss.1970). This Court has held that after the verdict has been received and entered, testimony of jurors will not be received for the purpos......
-
Martin v. State, 96-KA-01110-SCT.
...Beverage Co., 625 So.2d 407, 413 (Miss.1993)(citing Crawley v. Illinois Central R.R., 248 So.2d 774 (Miss.1971); Ratliff v. Nail, 231 So.2d 798, 800 (Miss.1970)). See also T.K. Stanley, Inc. v. Cason, 614 So.2d 942, 949 (Miss. 1992); Brake v. Speed, 605 So.2d 28, 35-36 (Miss.1992); Fairman ......
-
Scates v. State
... ... In reaching this ... conclusion, the Supreme Court cited Ratcliff v ... Nail , 231 So.2d 798, 800 (Miss. 1970), for the principle ... that "it has long been the law of ... ...