Riddle v. Barksdale
| Decision Date | 20 April 1953 |
| Citation | 75 S.E.2d 507,194 Va. 766 |
| Parties | GUY P. RIDDLE v. GEORGE LEE BARKSDALE |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Langhorne Jones, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph Whitehead, Jr., W. C. Thompson, for defendant in error.
JUDGE:
MILLER
Plaintiff, George Lee Barksdale, was injured when an automobile that he was driving collided with the rear of a truck owned by defendant, Guy P. Riddle, and operated by his agent and employee, James L. Walden. When the accident occurred, plaintiff was only eighteen years old, but within ninety days thereafter he instituted this action in his own name and recovered a verdict of $2,000. The verdict was rendered on July 25, 1951, when plaintiff was twenty years old, and from the judgment entered against Riddle on that day, we granted him an appeal.
Defendant does not contend that his driver was free from negligence, but he asserts that the evidence conclusively shows that Barksdale was guilty of contributory negligence, and for that reason he says the judgment should be vacated and final judgment entered in his favor. If that be not done, then defendant relies upon the fact that the record discloses that plaintiff was under twenty-one years of age when he instituted this action in his own name and obtained a verdict and judgment. He insists that the proceeding was and is wholly void because it was instituted and prosecuted by the infant without a next friend.
Defendant's first contention requires that the facts and circumstances surrounding the collision be fully stated.
The accident took place after dark on November 8, 1950, about 6:30 o'clock p.m. on U.S. Route 29 in Pittsylvania County. Where the mishap occurred, the highway, which is twenty feet wide, extends in a northerly and southerly direction, and it is divided in the center by a white line. Southward from the point of collision, the road is substantially straight, and by day there is a clear and unobstructed view for about 850 feet. Yet the evidence discloses that some 100 feet or thereabouts south from where the impact took place there is a slight curve in the road which tends to prevent the headlights of a north bound car from shining directly upon a vehicle preceding it at that particular location.
Both vehicles were headed north, the truck preceding the passenger car, and they had been going in that direction for some time before the accident happened. Yet it does not appear that the two vehicles were sufficiently close to each other for the driver of the passenger car to have seen the truck ahead until immediately before the collision. At that time the passenger car which was being driven at a greater speed than the truck had overtaken that vehicle.
The flat-bottomed truck operated by defendant's employee, Walden, weighed about 4,800 pounds, and it was loaded with 8,000 to 10,000 pounds of one-inch thick, 12-foot long oak boards, making an over-all weight of about 13,000 to 15,000 pounds. Riding in the truck with the driver was Haywood Townes, another of defendant's employees, and plaintiff was accompanied by Emmett O'Neill. The physical facts show that plaintiff's car, which was proceeding along the 10 foot wide northbound lane of the road struck the rear part of the truck slightly to the left of its center. Marks upon the highway disclosed that the passenger car had skidded about 53 to 58 feet before it collided with the truck. A solid black line extended 33 feet southward from the point of impact and then there were a number of short skid marks for 20 or 25 feet more. These marks indicated that plaintiff began applying his brakes some 53 feet or more south of the point where his car ultimately struck the truck. In describing the skid mark which extended southwardly from the immediate place of impact, Sheriff D. K. Hall said: 'This car had slid a distance of 30 feet, a solid black line. ' He thereafter said this solid skid mark was 33 feet instead of 30 feet, and he also described the other skid marks which extended 20 to 25 feet farther southward as being lighter and broken.
When the passenger car struck the truck, the latter vehicle had actually stopped or was moving very slowly preparatory to stopping. The force of the blow moved or aided in moving the truck 27 feet. The impact was sufficiently severe to break the cross members or bars that held together its platform, and the floor boards were driven forward into the cab. When the truck was struck, it was knocked or propelled forward from under the lumber, which slipped off its rear onto the front of the passenger car. Plaintiff's car was badly damaged, he was injured, and his passenger, Emmett O'Neill, sustained injuries from which he died.
Though there was no dispute as to the physical facts appearing at the scene, there was conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the truck carried any rear light as required by law and as to what happened immediately prior to the collision. Thus there was conflict in the testimony as to what actually caused the accident. Plaintiff and two of his witnesses said that the truck bore no rear light. He also testified that the truck was stopped suddenly on the hard surface of the road and without any signal being given. He thus described how fast he was driving, where the two vehicles were when he first saw the truck, and what then happened:
When questioned about his application of the brakes when he saw the truck, he testified as follows:
Defendant's driver and his other employee testified that the truck was properly equipped with rear light which was burning and they said that the truck had not been brought to a stop when struck from the rear.
These conflicts in the evidence have, however, been settled in plaintiff's favor. He now enjoys the favored position of having obtained the verdict of a jury which has been approved by the trial court. We may not disturb the judgment unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Marks v. Ore, 187 Va. 146, 45 S.E. (2d) 894; Temple v. Ellington, 177 Va. 134, 12 S.E. (2d) 826; Orndorff v. Howell, 181 Va. 383, 25 S.E. (2d) 327; Virginia Stage Lines, Inc. v. Duff, 185 Va. 592, 39 S.E. (2d) 634.
It may be that plaintiff was driving faster than he says or that he should have seen the truck before he was quite so close upon it. Yet we cannot say as a matter of fact from the physical evidence surrounding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maager v. Hoye
...168 Va. 321, 191 S.E. 779; Cape Charles Flying Service v. Nottingham, 1948, 187 Va. 444, 47 S. E.2d 540. However, in Riddle v. Barksdale, 1953, 194 Va. 766, 75 S.E.2d 507, it was held that a judgment in favor of an infant plaintiff who sued without a next friend was not void where the judgm......
-
Jones v. Aluminum Window & Door Corp.
...with approval in Simmons v. Craig, 199 Va. 338, 99 S.E.2d 641; Kidd and Taylor v. Little, 194 Va. 692, 74 S.E.2d 787; Riddle v. Barksdale, 194 Va. 766, 75 S.E.2d 507; and Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. Courtney, 182 Va. 175, 27 S.E.2d At the instance of plaintiff the court gave the foll......
-
Cook v. Radford Community Hosp., Inc., Record No. 992710.
...absence of a previously appointed fiduciary in Dunn and the presence of one in the instant case. Cook's reliance on Riddle v. Barksdale, 194 Va. 766, 75 S.E.2d 507 (1953), for the proposition that a minor's suit is valid even though he did not sue by next friend is also misplaced. In Riddle......
-
Whitfield v. Dunn, 5178
...& Power Company v. Courtney, 182 Va. 175, 27 S.E.2d 917; Kidd and Taylor v. Little, 194 Va. 692, 695, 74 S.E.2d 787; Riddle v. Barksdale, 194 Va. 766, 770, 75 S.E.2d 507; Simmons v. Craig, 199 Va. 338, 343, 99 S.E.2d 641; and Jones v. Aluminum Window & Door Corporation, 201 Va. 283, 289, 11......