Salinas v. Kahn, 2
| Decision Date | 22 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Citation | 409 P.2d 64,2 Ariz.App. 348 |
| Parties | Pete SALINAS and Allan Arthur Transportation, Inc., a corporation, Appellants, v. Esther R. KAHN, as surviving widow of Manuel S. Kahn, deceased, Allied Van Lines, Inc., a corporation, York Moving and Storage Co., a corporation, Sandra Branam, as personal representative of the Estate of Robert W. Branam, deceased, Sandra Branam, et al., and Nancy Hilligoss, aka Nancy Kahn, individually and as next best friend of Pamela Hilligoss, et al., Appellees. 43. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Snell & Wilmer, by Roger W. Perry, Phoenix, for appellants.
Lesher, Scruggs, Rucker, Kimble & Lindamood, by D. Thompson Slutes, Tucson, for appellee Esther R. Kahn.
Hirsch, Van Slyke, Richter & Ollason, by Clague A. Van Slyke, Tucson, for appellee Nancy Hilligoss.
Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Richmond, by Thomas Chandler, Tucson, for appellees Allied Van Lines and Sandra Branam.
Vigorous motions for rehearing have called this court's attention to the fact that one of the 'pellets' resulting in a reversal of this case did not find its mark of establishing reversible error.
A rereading of the record establishes that no proper objection was made by the appellants to the giving of the instruction informing the jury that '* * * where the accident caused is of the kind the Statute was intended to prevent, * * *' then the accident which occurred '* * * must be considered to be proximately caused by nonobservance of the law.' The only objection made to this instruction was that there was no evidence of any violation of any statutory provision on the part of the appellants. This objection does not point out to the trial court the error in the subject instruction and therefore the giving of the instruction does not merit a reversal. Musgrave v. Githens, 80 Ariz. 188, 192, 294 P.2d 674, 677 (1956).
The same motions for rehearing call our attention to the fact that the opinion released by this court overstates the evidence in support of there being lights burning on the Allan Arthur Transportation rig immediately prior to the collision. Our previous opinion said: 'All of the witnesses who testified at the trial indicated there were several red lights burning to the rear of the sheep trailer at the time of the accident.' A rereading of the transcript convinces us that this statement should be withdrawn from the opinion and the following substituted.
Salinas, the driver of the Allan Arthur Transportation rig, testified that he turned his clearance lights on the evening prior to the accident and checked to see that they were on before retiring to sleep in the cab of the truck. These clearance lights included nine taillights on the rear of the trailer, any one of which would satisfy the requirements of the subject statute. The lights on the trailer and the truck were connected and turned on with the same switch. After the accident, the clearance lights on the truck were still burning. The force of the impact was such that the tongue connecting the trailer to the truck was bent '* * * clear down underneath' and the bed of the truck was shoved one foot into the cab of the truck. Banning, a driver of a truck behind the Allied vehicle, testified that he observed the clearance lights of the Allan Arthur Transportation rig when he came around the slight curve in the highway approximately one mile east of the accident, that he saw the lights of the Allied Van truck merge into the lights of the Allan Arthur Transportation rig and then the lights of the Allied Van truck went out. When he got to the scene of the accident the lights on the trailer were off but the lights on the truck were still burning. The impeaching statement introduced into evidence as to Banning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goncalves v. Regent Intern. Hotels, Ltd.
...F.Supp. 530, revd. on other grounds 302 F.2d 570; Salinas v. Kahn, 2 Ariz.App. 181, 407 P.2d 120, mod. on other grounds reh. den. 2 Ariz.App. 348, 409 P.2d 64; Seybert v. Imperial County, 162 Cal.App.2d 209, 327 P.2d 560; Crosby Aeromarine v. Hyde, 115 Ga.App. 836, 156 S.E.2d 106; Howes v. ......
-
Cronin v. Sheldon
...objection as to its constitutionality." Salinas v. Kahn, 2 Ariz.App. 181, 193, 407 P.2d 120, 132, modified on other grounds, 2 Ariz.App. 348, 409 P.2d 64 (1965). "Constitutional issues will not be determined unless squarely presented in a justiciable controversy...." School Dist. No. 26 v. ......
-
Olson v. Olson, 24649.
...Reynolds v. Willis, Del.Supr., 209 A.2d 760 (1965) (approving O'Toole); Salinas v. Kahn, Ariz.Ct.App., 407 P.2d 120 (1965), modified, 409 P.2d 64; Frazier v. Ewell Engineering & Contracting Co., Fla.Supr., 62 So.2d 51 (1953 [1952]); Van Wie v. United States, D.C. Iowa, 77 F.Supp. 22 (1948) ......
-
Yowell v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
...loss of inheritance damages. Salinas v. Kahn, 2 Ariz.App. 181, 407 P.2d 120, 133-34 (1965) op. mod. on other grounds and reh. den. 2 Ariz.App. 348, 409 P.2d 64; Griffey v. Pacific Electric R. Co., 58 Cal.App. 509, 209 P. 45, 48 (1922); Denver & Rio Grande R. Co. v. Frederic, 57 Colo. 90, 14......