Santoro v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 05 April 1927 |
| Citation | 254 P. 1019,121 Or. 424 |
| Parties | SANTORO v. BROOKS. [*] |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Geo. R. Bagley, Judge.
Action by Bruno Santoro against J. W. Brooks. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action to recover damages resulting from an automobile collision, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. About 5 o'clock in the evening of a clear day, October 19, 1923, Ruffie Santoro, son of the plaintiff was driving a Ford auto truck on the Tualatin Valley highway in a westerly direction, toward the city of Hillsboro. In the car with the boy driver, who was 18 years of age, were his two little sisters and his younger brother. As the automobile, which was being driven on the right-hand side of the paved highway, approached the village of Reedville and was about 340 feet from point of collision, it is alleged the defendant, whose automobile had previously stood upon the platform in front of a warehouse near to and on the south side of the highway and almost directly south of where the accident occurred, carelessly and negligently, without giving any signal or keeping his car under control, drove in an easterly direction for a few feet and then turned northerly and to the left across the pavement, thereby colliding with the Santoro car approaching from the right. It is averred that, as a result of the collision, Rosie Santoro, aged 11 years, died from injuries which she received, the other children were injured in such way as to require medical attention, and plaintiff's auto truck was damaged, on account of which judgment against defendant was demanded in the sum of $10,000.
Defendant in his answer denies generally the allegations of negligence as charged in the complaint and alleges affirmatively in substance (a) that he signaled before starting his automobile down the platform on which it was standing before the collision; (b) that plaintiff's son was driving the auto truck in a westerly direction on the north side of a paved highway at a high, dangerous, and excessive rate of speed that the day upon which the accident happened was clear, and that the boy had an unobstructed view for a distance of 400 feet at the time defendant was crossing the highway, and saw defendant turning in a westerly direction in time to have avoided the collision, by turning to the right or left, or by stopping the car; (c) that plaintiff's son did not attempt to reduce his speed or sound any horn or otherwise give any warning of his approach.
Defendant further avers that whatever damage, if any, plaintiff sustained was caused by the negligence and carelessness of Ruffie Santoro, as above stated.
On the issues thus briefly stated, the cause was submitted to a jury and a verdict returned in favor of plaintiff for $1,925. Defendant appeals.
Isham N. Smith, of Portland (J. Dean Butler, of Oregon City, and George Black, Jr., of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
E. B Tongue, of Hillsboro, for respondent.
BELT J. (after stating the facts as above).
Defendant's motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict present the question as to whether plaintiff's son was guilty of contributory negligence. These motions are in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and, in determining whether the trial court was right in submitting the cause to the jury, we must look upon the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. No attention will be given to questions of fact upon which the testimony is conflicting. It is uncontradicted that the Santoro boy, at the time of the collision, was driving at the rate of 25 to 30 miles per hour; that he saw the defendant drive slowly down the approach to the platform in front of the warehouse when he was approximately 340 feet east thereof; and that he was only 150 feet from defendant when the latter reached the edge of the pavement, gradually turning his car to the left with the apparent intention of driving westerly on the pavement. Counsel for appellant argues that, under these circumstances, it was the duty of the Santoro boy to slow down and to sound his horn, giving notice of his approach, and that his failure so to do contributed or helped to cause the collision about which complaint is made. It is urged by appellant that the accident occurred at a street intersection, and that it was negligence per se for plaintiff's son to drive across same in excess of 12 miles per hour. The Santoro boy's version of the accident is disclosed by the following portion of the record:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. City of Portland
... ... have exercised under all the facts and circumstances as they ... appeared to exist. As stated in Santoro v. Brooks, ... 121 Or. 424, 254 P. 1019, 1021: "In the quietude of the ... office, it is comparatively easy to demonstrate by ... ...
-
Burroughs v. Southern Pac. Co.
... ... involved had done this or that thing, but the law does not ... apply such a rigid test. Santoro v. Brooks, 121 Or ... 424, 254 P. 1019 ... As a ... general rule this court, in railroad crossing cases, has ... ...
- State ex rel. Douglas County v. Sanders
-
Best v. Tavenner
...of an improper remark made by the trial judge is deemed cured by its withdrawal and a caution to the jury to disregard it. Santoro v. Brooks, 121 Or. 424, 254 P. 1019; Richardson v. Portland Trackless Car Co., 113 544, 233 P. 540; Verrell v. First National Bank, 80 Or. 550, 157 P. 813. For ......