Rushing v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 22 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 42407,42407 |
| Citation | 145 So.2d 695,244 Miss. 677 |
| Parties | Alton RUSHING v. Whitney EDWARDS. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
J. B. Mitchell, Smith & Smith, Corinth, for appellant.
Mitchell, McNutt & Bush, Tupelo, for appellee.
Alton Rushing, appellant, brought this suit in the Circuit Court of Tishomingo County against appellee, Whitney Edwards, for personal injuries resulting when Rushing fell off a truck loaded with hay and driven by Edwards. The questions center around the propriety of giving a sudden emergency instruction under the facts; Rushing's right to complain about it when he obtained an instruction on the same theory and did not ask for a peremptory instruction on any issue; and whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
Since the jury returned a verdict for Edwards, the facts and reasonable inferences from them are stated in the light most favorable to Edwards.
Vandeford produced a crop of hay on land owned by Mrs. Sharp. For rent he paid her one-fourth of the crop; Vandeford was to receive the other three-fourths. Edwards bought from Mrs. Sharp her one-fourth of the hay. Vandeford was obligated to deliver the one-fourth to Edwards' barn. He also desired to haul the remaining three-fourths, belonging to him, to his barn. On the day before the accident, Vandeford arranged for Alton Rushing, and his two sons, Charles and Kenneth, who lived just over the Tennessee line from Tishomingo County, Mississippi, to help him load and haul the hay. On September 5, 1960, for that purpose Vandeford used a truck owned by him which had been 'laying up', unused, for at least a year.
After Vandeford picked up Rushing and his two sons, they went to the field, hauled two loads of baled hay, and delivered them to Vandeford's barn. Vandeford drove his truck all that morning. The brakes were all right on both of the trips, and when they returned to the field after dinner. Vandeford and Edwards were friends and neighbors, and helped one another from time to time without charge, by swapping work. After dinner Vandeford drove to Edwards' house, and arranged with him to help that afternoon with further loading and hauling of the hay. Vandeford drove the truck back to the field, with Edwards in it, and then went to a nearby field to cut and bale some other hay.
Vandeford hired plaintiff (at $5 a day) and his two sons, and paid all of them. They were not employees of Edwards, Vandeford requested Edwards to drive the truck on the afternoon hauls. He told Edwards 'to watch the truck, that it had been sitting there for about a year and hadn't been used'; but he did not say anything about the brakes. The Rushings loaded the truck each time, with about eighty-five bales. It had no sideboards, and the hay was not tied down but only stacked. That afternoon Edwards, driving the truck, hauled two loads of hay without difficulty, one to Vandeford's barn, the second to his barn.
The accident happened on the third load of that afternoon, destined for Vandeford's barn. Before that, the brakes had been working all right. Edwards said, 'Everytime I stepped on the brakes, they worked.' 'We went down the grade twice before and we didn't have a bit of trouble, why should I have expected any?' On the preceding trips, the truck was driven well over one-fourth of a mile each way. On the third load of the afternoon, Edwards again drove the truck, with Charles Rushing in the cab beside him. Plaintiff Alton Rushing and his son, Kenneth, were riding on top of the load. Edwards drove on a field road up to a graveled county road, which was narrow, and into which the loaded truck could not be turned without backing up and making a second turn. When he backed up, the brakes locked, and apparently unlocked. He then turned on the road going east, and drove for about one-fourth of a mile to a T-intersection of a road running north and south, upon which the eastbound road ended. About 200-250 yards from the intersection the road began a slight downgrade, dropping about fifteen feet over that distance.
When Edwards moved over the ridge and started downgrade to the intersection, 200-250 yards away, he was driving about twenty miles per hour. He pumped the foot brakes and found they did not work. Charles Rushing grabbed the emergency brake and pulled it up, but it did not hold. Charles said that he thought the emergency brake 'burned up' when, before this day, the truck was hauling a load of lumber. With no brakes, the truck ran faster and faster. Trying to get the truck in gear, it got in neutral, and Edwards was not able to move it back into gear. When he reached the intersection, it was moving about twenty-five miles per hour. At this dead end, he turned left, the truck did not turn over, but most of the hay was thrown off, along with Alton Rushing and his son. The hay fell on Rushing, and he suffered a broken arm, bruises and contusions. The truck rolled up the road about three lengths, and stopped, the brakes still not working.
Edwards said that he always pumped the brakes on any truck he was driving. Before the accident, on the earlier hauls, he did the same thing with this truck, and the brakes had worked. Whether the truck was old or new, he always pumped the brakes when hauling.
After the accident, plaintiff was carried to a hospital. Charles Rushing drove the truck home to tell his mother about it, and returned it to Vandeford's home. He told Vandeford that the brakes went out near the intersection. Vandeford checked them the next morning, and found the truck had no brakes. He noticed a leak of brake fluid from one of the cylinders.
Rushing did not ask for a peremptory instruction, but made a motion for a new trial. He contends the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; that Edwards was negligent in driving the truck at an excessive rate of speed, failing to keep it under control, and failing to exercise the care of a reasonable, prudent man in its operation, with particular reference to his failure to inspect both the foot and emergency brakes.
Edwards relied principally upon the existence of a sudden emergency, which was set forth in the following instruction to the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Southern Lines, Inc. v. Lum, 43754
...emergency, it becomes a jury question. Lum v. Jackson Industrial Uniform Serv., Inc., 175 So.2d 501 (Miss.1965) Rushing v. Edwards, 244 Miss. 677, 145 So.2d 695 (1962). See also Vann v. Tankersly, 164 Miss. 748, 145 So. 642 (1933); 38 Am.Jur. Negligence, Sec. 41 When it is determined that a......
-
Kettle v. Musser's Potato Chips, Inc., 42918
...which we have repeatedly held are essential. We find that while we did not criticize the form of the instruction in Rushing v. Edwards, 244 Miss. 677, 145 So.2d 695, decided October 22, 1962, we did criticize the giving of it under the particular facts in that In Hill v. Pruitt, 99 So.2d 60......
-
CIG Contractors, Inc. v. Mississippi State Bldg. Com'n
...See Cadillac Corp. v. C.R. Moore, 320 So.2d 361 (Miss.1975); Walls v. Hammond Ford Co., 220 So.2d 347 (Miss.1969); Rushing v. Edwards, 244 Miss. 677, 145 So.2d 695 (1962); McKendrick v. Lyle Cashion Co., 234 Miss. 325, 105 So.2d 480 (1958). Ultimately, we need not rest our decision on this ......
-
Barber v. Great Southern Development Co., 43008
...same issue. Where both parties present an issue to the jury, neither may complain that such instruction was erroneous. Rushing v. Edwards, 244 Miss. 677, 145 So.2d 695. Appellant also contends that the instructions complained of did not properly take into account the theory of ratification ......