Ringwald v. Beene

• Decision Date: 04 April 1936
• Parties: RINGWALD v. BEENE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 411

92 S.W.2d 411

RINGWALD v. BEENE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 4, 1936.

Error to Circuit Court, Rutherford County; T. L. Coleman, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Jack Beene against H. A. Ringwald. To review a judgment reversing a judgment for plaintiff, both parties bring certiorari.

Judgment modified and remanded.

C. C. Jackson and Dement & Hargis, all of Murfreesboro, for plaintiff in error.

Holloway & Holloway, of Murfreesboro, for defendant in error.

GREEN, Chief Justice.

This suit was brought by Mrs. Jack Beene to recover damages for injuries to her person and to her automobile growing out of a collision between that vehicle and an automobile belonging to H. A. Ringwald.

There was a judgment for the plaintiff below for $1,750 for personal injuries and for $125 for injuries to her car. The Court of Appeals was of opinion that defendant's motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained and reversed the judgment below and dismissed the suit. Both parties filed petitions for certiorari, which we have granted.

The plaintiff was a school teacher living at Jasper. She was on her way to Murfreesboro to attend a session of the Normal School there. The car in which she was traveling belonged to her. Her husband was driving the car and she sat on the front seat with him. She was bringing two other young women to Murfreesboro and they sat on the rear seat. The sole purpose of the trip was to bring Mrs. Beene to Murfreesboro to attend school.

The accident happened about four or five miles east of Murfreesboro on the state highway. Defendant Ringwald was driving east into Murfreesboro when he met the postman. Ringwald stopped his car in order to get out and get his mail. The postman, after passing Ringwald, stopped his car a short distance in the rear of Ringwald's car.

At this time Mrs. Beene's car, traveling east toward Murfreesboro, driven by her husband as aforesaid, approached Ringwald's car from the rear. Mrs. Beene, her husband, and the occupants of her car testified that Ringwald stopped his car on the paved portion of the highway, failing to pull off on the shoulder. These witnesses said that Beene was driving at a moderate rate of speed and, when within thirty or forty feet of Ringwald's car, Beene pulled out to the left to pass that car. That as Beene was pulling out to the left, a car came over the brow of a hill meeting the Beene car, at a rapid rate of speed. That Ringwald had stopped his car so that there was not sufficient space for the Beene car to pass to the left of the Ringwald car, between that car and the oncoming car, and that to avoid a head-on collision with the approaching car, Beene pulled back to his right. Beene was unable to stop the car he was driving, the pavement being wet, before that car collided with the rear of the Ringwald car. As a result of this collision there is no doubt but that Mrs. Beene was seriously injured and her automobile damaged to the extent indicated by the verdict.

The negligence alleged on the part of defendant Ringwald is that he stopped his car on the highway in violation of Code, § 2690 (a):

"No person shall park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or improved or main traveled portion of any highway, outside of a business or residence district, when it is practicable to park or leave such vehicle standing off of the paved or improved or main traveled portion of such highway; provided, in no event shall any person park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon any highway unless a clear and unobstructed width of not less than fifteen feet upon the main traveled portion of said highway opposite such standing vehicle shall be left for free passage of other vehicles thereon, nor unless a clear view of such vehicle shall be obtained from a distance of two hundred feet in each direction upon such highway."

Evidence introduced by the plaintiff below tended to show that defendant Ringwald had violated this section of the Code in two particulars: First, that he stopped his car so as not to leave a clear and unobstructed width of fifteen feet upon the main traveled portion of the highway opposite his vehicle; and, second, that he stopped his car at a point where there was not a clear view of such vehicle from the east of as much as two hundred feet. Plaintiff's proof indicated that from the point at which the Ringwald car was stopped toward the top of the hill to the east was about one hundred and twenty feet.

Evidence introduced on behalf of the defendant tended to show that Ringwald had not stopped his car as plaintiff's witnesses said; that his car was parked so as to leave fully fifteen feet on the paved portion of the highway opposite his vehicle. Ringwald's proof was moreover to the effect that his car was stopped more than three hundred feet from the top of the hill toward the east, and that the view from his car in either direction was unobstructed for a distance of more than three hundred feet.

This conflict in the testimony was settled by the verdict of the jury, as the Court of Appeals properly held. Several questions, however, remain to be determined, although we accept the story of the accident as related by plaintiff's witnesses. It is said for the defendant Ringwald, even if it be conceded that he was guilty of negligence in stopping his car as plaintiff contends, nevertheless plaintiff and the driver of her car were guilty of such contributory negligence as to bar any recovery on her behalf. The defendant relies on Code, § 2686 (a) and (b):

"(a) The driver of a vehicle shall not drive to the left side of the center line of a highway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless...