Schweitzer v. Anderson
| Citation | 83 N.W.2d 416 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 7565,7566,s. 7565 |
| Parties | Michael Jake SCHWEITZER, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Alice Schweitzer, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ardeen ANDERSON, Defendant and Respondent. Alice SCHWEITZER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ardeen ANDERSON, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Questions of negligence and proximate cause are ordinarily questions of fact for the jury. It is only where the state of the record is such that reasonable men can draw but one conclusion therefrom that they become questions of law.
2. A motorist must exercise a higher degree of care toward children than toward adults and he must exercise this care to avoid injuring children whom he sees, or by the exercise of reasonable care should see, on or near a highway.
3. Where children may be expected along a street, a motorist may not confine his lookout to a narrow lane immediately in front of his vehicle but has a duty to watch the sides of the street as well.
4. A child can only be held to that degree of care which ordinarily prudent children of its age, experience and judgment are wont to use under like circumstances.
5. Whether a child nine days less than seven years old has been guilty of contributory negligence is a question of fact for the jury.
Lanier, Lanier & Knox, Fargo, for appellant.
Nilles, Oehlert & Nilles, and E. J. Murphy, Fargo, for respondent.
The plaintiffs in these actions sought to recover damages for injuries which they allege were proximately caused by the defendant's negligent operation of an automobile. The plaintiff, Michael Jake Schweitzer, a minor, asked damages because of a broken leg, suffered when he was struck by a car driven by the defendant. The plaintiff, Alice Schweitzer, mother of Michael, asked damages because of necessary expenses incurred and time lost from work, during the treatment and convalescence of her son. The two cases were consolidated for the purposes of trial and a trial of the issues to a jury resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in each case. Defendant thereafter moved in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial in each case. The trial judge granted the motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts and such judgments were thereupon entered. The plaintiffs have appealed from these judgments.
At the outset of our consideration of these appeals, we must first dispose of a motion to strike from the statement of the case an affidavit of Mrs. Marian Hennings, one of the witnesses at the trial. Upon the motion of the defendant this affidavit was incorporated into and certified by the trial judge as a part of the settled statement of the case. In this affidavit the witness gives her explanation of conflicting statements which appear in the testimony she gave at the trial. Clearly the affidavit has no proper place in the statement of the case. The function of a statement of the case is to provide a record of all of the evidence taken and the proceedings had upon the trial of the case. Section 29-1806 NDRC 1943. Afterthoughts of witnesses or counsel are not a part of the record. If a witness at a jury trial wishes to explain any conflicting testimony, the explanation should be made to the jury during the trial so that they can pass upon the credibility of the explanation as well as that of the original testimony. The motion to strike is granted.
Upon the merits of these appeals there are but two questions. The first is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding by the jury of actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. The second is whether the evidence shows contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, Michael Schweitzer, as a matter of law.
On the day of the accident, the defendant, Ardeen Anderson, together with her friends Mrs. Hennings, Mrs. Patterson, and Mrs. Cysewski left their place of employment at about 10 minutes to 12 o'clock noon to go to the Powers Hotel for lunch. They were all employed at the offices of the Firestone Company which are located on 5th Ave. North between 13th St. and 14th St. in Fargo. They all rode in the car driven by Mrs. Anderson. Mrs. Cysewski sat in the front seat with Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Hennings and Mrs. Patterson sat in the rear seat. After leaving their place of employment they proceeds south on 13th St. or 14th St. to 4th Ave. North where they turned east. They then proceeded east on 4th Ave. North to a point about 130 feet east of 10th St. where the accident occurred. Along the route they traveled they passed the Woodrow Wilson School which is located on 4th Ave. between 12th St. and 13th St. The school is an elementary school and as she drove by Mrs. Anderson saw the children who had just been dismissed for the noon recess. When she arrived at the intersection of 4th Ave. and 10th St., she stopped before proceeding through the intersection because of a 'stop light'. After crossing this intersection she proceeded at a speed which she stated was from 10 to 15 miles per hour. On the south side of 4th Ave. east of the intersection were two parked cars. It was about 100 ft. from the corner to the first of these cars. According to the defendant, as she was about to pass the first of these cars the plaintiff, Michael Schweitzer, ran out from between the two cars. She saw him first when he was two or three feet away from her right front fender. She immediately applied her brakes but did not attempt to avoid striking the plaintiff, Michael, by turning to the left 'as there wasn't time'. The defendant was positive in her statements that she was constantly watching the street ahead, that she was not engaged in conversation with the other occupants of her car and that she did not see Michael at anytime until he 'darted' out from between the two parked cars.
Mrs. Cysewski testified that immediately before the accident she didn't remember that Mrs. Anderson was talking to the ladies in the back seat, that she believed that she was not talking to them but could not be positive.
When asked concerning a conversation between the ladies immediately prior to the accident, Mrs. Patterson testified:
'Well we were looking at Mrs. Hennings' gloves. Maybe we were saying something, I don't know.
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
When asked concerning the foregoing incident Mrs. Hennings testified:
'A. It didn't cause too much of a commotion. We were just laughing a little bit because I was sitting there waving my fingers.
'Q. And you were waving at whom? A. At Eleanor.
'Q. That is Eleanor Patterson? A. Yes. That is right.
'Q. Did Mrs. Anderson participate in any degree in this incident? A. She noticed it and was laughing a little. Not too loudly. She was laughing a little bit about it.
'Q. Which way was she looking just before the accident happened, if you know? A. I think at me, I am not sure.
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
At the time the accident occurred Michael Schweitzer was a pupil in the second grade at the Woodrow Wilson School. He lacked 9 days of being 7 years old. On his way home from school at noon he proceeded eastward on the southside of 4th Ave. After he crossed the intersection at 10th St. and 4th Ave. he started to run. He ran eastward on the sidewalk until he was approximately opposite the opening between the two parked cars, he then turned north and continued running across the 18 ft. boulevard, between the two parked cars and directly into the path of the car driven by the defendant. He did not see the car at any time. He admitted that he did not look for any cars before entering the street. He also stated that he had been told in school to cross streets only at intersections and not to enter a street from between parked cars.
Respondent contends that this evidence is not sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence on the part of the defendant. The appellants assert, however, that the evidence supports a finding that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain a proper lookout or in failing to take advantage of an opportunity to avoid hitting the plaintiff, Michael, by turning her car sharply to the left after she saw him in a position of danger.
Questions of negligence and proximate cause are ordinarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knoepfle v. Suko
...become questions of law for the court. Satterland v. Fieber, N.D., 91 N.W.2d 623; Goulet v. O'Keeffe, N.D., 83 N.W.2d 889; Schweitzer v. Anderson, N.D., 83 N.W.2d 416; Austinson v. Kilpatrick, N.D., 105 N.W.2d Appellant advances several arguments to support his position. He says that the lo......
-
Greene v. Werven
...N.D., 71 N.W.2d 753, 756; Spenningsby v. Peterson, N.D., 67 N.W.2d 913, 915; Geier v. Tjaden, N.D., 74 N. W.2d 361, 364; Schweitzer v. Anderson, N.D., 83 N.W.2d 416, 419; Satterland v. Fieber, N.D., 91 N.W.2d 623, 625; King v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., N.D., 94 N.W.2d 657, 659; Erdahl v......
-
Champagne v. U.S.
...is well established ... that a child 3 1/2 years of age cannot be made chargeable with contributory negligence."); Schweitzer v. Anderson, 83 N.W.2d 416, 420 (N.D.1957) ("A child can only be held to that degree of care which ordinarily prudent children of its age and experience are wont to ......
-
Austinson v. Kilpatrick
...become questions of law for the court. Satterland v. Fieber, N.D., 91 N.W.2d 623; Goulet v. O'Keefe, N.D., 83 N.W.2d 889; Schweitzer v. Anderson, N.D., 83 N.W.2d 416. Tested by the above rule the evidence in this case falls short of making the question of contributory negligence one for the......